There was one new case involving freedom of expression and peaceful assembly in September 2025. The case was against Peungboon Jaiyen on charges related to destruction of public property, stemming from him writing “Prathet Thuai”—a play on “Prathet Thai” (Thailand)—on a traffic sign back in 2020. It was found that the police had released the warrant 4 years ago, but had never proceeded with the arrest.
Regarding the conclusion of cases, verdicts have been delivered in at least fifteen cases, divided into: 10 cases under Section 112, 1 case under Section 110 and 4 other miscellaneous cases. There was only one dismissal from the court in the case of “Daeng Chinjang”
Accordingly, last month saw 11 new political prisoners after the court had indicted them with no bail granted, including in cases that have already concluded. This has made it so that, as of 5 October 2025, there are at least 57 political prisoners in detention.
As for the new charges in the past month, there was found to be at least 2. The first was the case of “Ta” Kathathorn on charges of igniting and releasing sparks into the sky without prior permission according to Order No. 27/2016 of the Head of the NCPO, issued by Gen. Prayut Chan-o-cha. The second was the case of Kittipong Juanwanpen on charges under Section 112 of the Criminal Code, stemming from 2 Facebook posts.
In addition, last month saw the case of Dr. Paul Chambers, an American academic specializing in the topic of civil-military relations in Southeast Asia, who had filed a lawsuit against the Commissioner-General of the Royal Thai Police, Commissioner of the Immigration Bureau, Immigration Commission, and Royal Thai Police for unlawfully revoking his visa. Dr. Paul has demanded compensation for damages incurred, including the impact on his academic freedom, totaling over 3.6 million Baht.
As for the case of Netiwit on charges of evading military conscription on the grounds of conscientious objection under the Military Service Act, witness examinations have concluded. The defendant has filed a motion to the constitutional court to determine whether the Military Service Act is in line with the constitution.
.
According to documentation from Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, since the “Free Youth” assembly on 18 July 2020 until 31 July 2025, at least 1,986 individuals have been charged for participating in public assemblies or expressing their political opinions in 1,338 cases. Compared with July 2025, there has been one new case.
Altogether, there have been at least 4,064 legal actions against individuals; some of them are charged for multiple offences.
Prosecution statistics in key offences;
1. Section 112 (lèse-majesté) of the Criminal Code, at least 284 individuals in 317 cases (Of this, at least 168 cases have stemmed from reports to the police made by members of the public.)
2. Section 116 (sedition) of the Criminal Code, at least 156 individuals in 56 cases
3. Violation of the Emergency Decree, at least 1,466 individuals in 677 cases
4. Violation of the Public Assembly Act, at least 199 individuals in 109 cases
5. Violation of the Computer Crimes Act, at least 216 individuals in 240 cases
6. Contempt of court, at least 45 individuals in 27 cases, and insult of the court, at least 37 individuals in 11 cases
Of 1,337 cases, 753 cases have reached their final verdicts (although some cases remain outstanding, since certain defendants decided to appeal the verdicts, while others have not).
.
.
Prosecution trends in September 2025 and key events are as follows:
“Phuengboon” was detained at the airport in the case of him writing “Prathet Thuai” on a traffic sign over a 4-year-old unnotified arrest warrant.
In the past month, one new case arose involving the right to protest and freedom of expression: the case of Chiang Mai tattoo artist Pheungboon Jaiyen, who was detained by immigration at Chiang Mai International Airport while preparing to depart to Taiwan for an artist residency program. He was arrested on charges relating to damage to public property or property for public benefit under Section 360 of the Criminal Code, stemming from him writing “Prathet Thuai”—a play on “Prathet Thai” (Thailand)—on a traffic sign back in 2020. It was found that the police had released the warrant 4 years ago, but had never proceeded with the arrest, even though Pheungboon has never attempted to evade prosecution, consistently appearing before police and courts to acknowledge his charges in multiple cases between the year 2021 to 2025.
An outstanding arrest warrant, which remained in the system without any prior notice and only appeared at the immigration checkpoint, prevented Phungboon from traveling abroad to take part in an artist residency program. This has caused him considerable setbacks and seriously affected his career opportunities. It is still unclear whether he will be able to travel for this funded project.
All ten Section 112 cases resulted in convictions. “Kru Yai” and “Pai” were not granted bail during the appeal process.
Throughout September 2025, verdicts were issued in at least fifteen cases, including ten Section 110 cases, one case under Section 110, and four cases under other charges. It was found that only “Daeng Chingjang” or Yongyut’s case resulted in a dismissal verdict; all fourteen others resulted in guilty verdicts.
Regarding the verdicts of Section 112 cases, there have been at least ten additional court rulings: seven at the Court of First Instance, two at the Court of Appeal, and one at the Supreme Court, as follows:
In the case against Aniwat “Nara” Prathumtin, stemming from a Facebook post and a comment under said post following the dispersal of protestors in the protest on 16 October 2020, the defendant pleaded guilty. The Court sentenced “Nara” to 1 year and 6 months in prison, with a 2-year suspended sentence.
In the case against Natthaphon “Bank” and Kathathorn “Ta”, stemming from a photo posted in 2024 showing the defendants holding signs in front of a royal portrait, the Criminal Court sentenced “Bank” to 2 years and 8 months in prison, and “Ta” to 2 years, both without suspension. The court found that the act was intended to reference the King and Queen, and that the message conveyed a negative, insulting, and disrespectful meaning. “Ta” was granted bail during the appeal process, while “Bank” remains in detention due to another ongoing case.
In the case against “Joi” (real name withheld), who was accused of firing a slingshot and burning of a royal decorative arch at Din Daeng Intersection during the ‘Thalu Gas’ assembly on 6 September 2021, the defendant pleaded guilty. The Criminal Court sentenced him to 1 year and 18 months in prison, with no suspended sentence. The court granted her bail during the appeal process.
In the case against Jirawat “Tum”, who was accused of being the administrator of the Facebook page “Kon Glom Liam”—a satirical political cartoon page which posted 4 satirical political drawings in 2022, the defendant pleaded guilty. The Criminal Court sentenced him to 4 years and 24 months (approximately 6 years) in prison, with a 3-year suspended sentence.
In the case against “Baipor” and Sophon “Get” Suratitthamrong, stemming from their speeches at the “WHAT HAPPENED IN THAILAND” protest while marching towards the APEC 2022 conference, the Bangkok South Criminal Court sentenced them to 2 years in prison each, with no suspended sentence. “Baipor” was granted bail in the appeal stage.
In the case against People’s Party member of parliament Chonticha “Lookkate” Jangrew, stemming from her open letter to King Rama X in Facebook in 2020, the court sentenced her to 2 years and months in prison, with no suspended sentence. The court deemed that the defendant caused King Rama X to be held in contempt and hatred, diminished public reverence, and harmed the monarchy’s reputation, national security, and the Kingdom. “Lookkate” was granted bail during the appeal stage.
And in another case against Chonticha “Lookkate” Jangrew’s, stemming from her speech calling for the release of political prisoners in front of Thanyaburi Provincial Court, as part of the protest on 11 September 2021, the Court of Appeals Region 1 upheld her conviction of 2 years in prison, with no suspended sentence. The court deemed that while the speech mainly mentioned the NCPO government, it included messages that damaged King Rama X’s honor, and considering the fact that the defendant was a member of parliament, someone who should be a great role model, the sentence should not be suspended. “Lookkate” was granted bail during the appeal stage.
In the case against Jatupat “Pai” Boonpattaraksa and Attapon “Kru Yai’ Buapat, stemming from their speech on monarchy reform delivered during the rally in front of Phu Khiao school and Phu Khiao Police Station in 2021, the Court of Appeals Region 3 upheld the previous verdict in sentencing “Pai” to 2 years and 12 months in prison and “Kru Yai” to 2 years, with no suspended sentence. The court deemed that defaming a former monarch is considered to affect the current King. Although the speech did not mention any specific monarch by name, the defendants were born during the reign of King Rama IX and currently live under the reign of King Rama X, hence the statements were intended to refer to both King Rama IX and King Rama X. Bail was denied, and both individuals are currently being held in prison.
In the same month, another verdict hearing in the case against Attapon “Kru Yai’ Buapat took place. The case stemmed from his speech at the Ratchaprasong Junction Protest on 18 November 2020. The Bangkok South Criminal Court sentenced ‘Kru Yai” to 3 years, with no suspended sentence. The court deemed that the speech’s mention of “Royal Prosecution” and the “Blue Dragon Tribe”—a fictional group of characters from One Piece—showed the defendant’s intent to reform the ruling system; the defendant’s claims that he was referencing the parliament and the government was unsubstantiated. As a result of this prosecution, “Kru Yai” has currently accumulated a total of 5 years in prison from his two cases.
Lastly, in the case against Chatmongkol “Boss” Wallee, stemming from his comment under the “Srisuriyothai” Facebook page in 2021, the Appeals Court reversed the Court of First Instance’s dismissal and sentenced “Boss” to 2 years in prison, with no suspended sentence. The court deemed that the plaintiff’s evidence proved without a doubt that the defendant was responsible for posting the comment, resulting in his case immediately ending. “Boss” was then taken into custody at the Chiangrai Central Prison.
.
In the Section 110 Case, the Appeals Court believed that the defendants were aware that it was the royal motorcade of Her Majesty the Queen and their actions constituted obstruction of the motorcade. The Appeals Court overturned the previous verdict, sentencing Ekkachai to 21 years and 4 months in prison, while the other four defendants face 16 years in prison.
The past month also saw the Appeals Court’s verdict in the Section 110 case against Ekkachai and four other defendants on charges of committing violence against the Queen’s liberty. They were previously accused of obstructing the royal motorcade of Her Majesty the Queen and Prince Dipangkorn Rasmijoti during the #Mob14Oct2020 assembly.
Originally, the Court of First Instance dismissed the defendants of all charges, but the Court of Appeals overturned the previous verdict. The court sentenced Bunkueanun “Francis” Paothong, Suranat “Tun” Paenprasert, and two other defendants to 16 years each, while Ekkachai Hongkangwan faced 21 years and 4 months in prison, with no suspended sentence. The Court deemed that all five defendants were aware that it was the royal motorcade of Her Majesty the Queen, and their actions constituted obstruction of the motorcade.
The court ruling raises major concerns regarding the assessment of the evidence from said incident. Furthermore, the Supreme Court rejected the bail requests for all five defendants, denying them the opportunity to fight the case while their case is pending appeal. Ekkachai and Chanathip each filed for bail once, while Boonkerdnoon, Suranat, and Panuphat filed for bail twice.
.
.
The Supreme Court denied “Vajira’s” appeal in the “Kangaroo Court” case. Vajira was taken into custody to serve the prison sentence issued by the Appeals Court.
The past month also saw the case of Vajira who was charged under Sections 5, 7, 9, and 10 of the Computer Crimes Act, stemming from him hacking into the Constitutional Court’s website and editing the website’s layout, changing the name of the website to “Kangaroo Court”—short court—on 11 November 2021, following the court’s ruling that the speeches delivered by the leaders of the Ratsadon movement constituted an attempt to overthrow the democratic system with the King as Head of State.
Previously, the Court of First Instance sentenced Vajira to 1 year and 6 months in prison with no suspended sentence. The Court of Appeal upheld the verdict. The defendant later filed for an appeal to the Supreme Court. However, the Court determined that the appeal merely disputed matters of fact, and since no Supreme Court judge endorsed the appeal, the sentence handed down by the Court of Appeal—1 year and 6 months of imprisonment—must be enforced. As a result, Watchira was taken into custody to serve the prison sentence immediately.
.
.
The Court dismisses “Daeng Chinjang’s” second case, while his three remaining cases await verdict in October 2025. All other recent cases have resulted in prosecution.
In the past month, Thai courts have issued a number of significant rulings in political cases.
In one of the few dismissals, “Daeng Shinjang” was found not guilty in a case involving charges of attempted murder and possession of explosives, stemming from a bombing incident at a PDRC protest site near Chaeng Watthana Government Complex on 26 March 2014. The Criminal Court ruled that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted him of all charges.
Daeng Shinjang has faced a total of five cases with similar allegations. Although he has now been dismissed in two of them, he remains in detention as bail has not been granted in the remaining three cases, all of which are scheduled for verdict in October 2025.
.
In the case against Jutatip “Ua” Sirikhan, stemming from her participation in the #SaveWanchalerm protest in front of the Bangkok Art and Culture Centre on 5 June 2020, demanding justice for Wanchalearm Satsaksit, a Thai activist who was forcibly disappeared, the Supreme Court dismissed her appeal, affirming that she helped organize a public gathering during a COVID-19 outbreak in violation of emergency regulations, and unlawfully refused to provide fingerprints. She was sentenced to 2 months in prison and a fine of 10,000 baht, with a 2-year suspended sentence.
.
In the case against five citizens: Natthanon Chaiyamahabutr, Thawat Suksaprasert, Sakchai Tangchitsadudee, Somkid Tosoi, and Chalouay Eksak, who were all found guilty of surrounding and damaging a prison transport vehicle during an attempt to transfer detained activists Panupong “Mike” Jadnok and Parit “Penguin” Chiwarak from Bangkok Remand Prison to Prachachuen Police Station on the evening of 30 October 2020 and were accused of attempting to free the two detainees, the Court of Appeal reduced their sentences to two years in prison and a 20,000 baht fine each, with a 2-year suspended sentence
.
In the case of Phichai and Naruebeth, who were accused of jointly carrying and throwing explosive devices at a police patrol vehicle from Lumpini Police Station near the Ratchaprasong intersection on the morning of 4 October 2021, the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s ruling. The court found the circumstantial evidence sufficient to prove the defendants’ actions. Phichai was sentenced to 3 years, 4 months, and 15 days in prison. Naruebeth was sentenced to 3 years and 4 months in prison, both without suspension. Their fines were slightly reduced to 900 baht for Phichai and 150 baht for Naruebeth.
However, only Phichai appeared in court; his bail request for the Supreme Court was denied, and he was immediately taken into custody. Naruebeth failed to appear, and a warrant had already been issued for his arrest in a previous hearing.
The only case last month which resulted in a dismissal was the case of “Daeng Chinjang,” who had been charged with possession of explosives and attempted premeditated murder. The charges stemmed from a bombing incident during a PDRC (People’s Democratic Reform Committee) protest on Chaeng Watthana Road near the Government Complex on 26 March 2014. The Criminal Court ruled that the evidence was insufficient to prove the defendant’s guilt as alleged, and therefore acquitted him of all charges.
Daeng Chinjang is facing a total of five cases involving similar charges and circumstances. Although he has now been dismissed in two of those cases, he remains in detention, as he has not been granted bail in the remaining three cases, all of which are scheduled for verdict in October 2025.
.
In total, at least 11 individuals became new political detainees in the past month after the court delivered final verdicts and denied bail. This includes cases involving: Jatupat “Pai” Boonpattararaksa, Attaphon “Kru Yai” Buapat, Chatmongkol “Boss”, Aekachai Hongkangwan, Boonkerdnoon Paothong, Suranat, Chanathip, Panuphat, Watchira, Phichai and “Pa James”. As a result, as of October 5, the total number of known political prisoners in Thailand has reached at least 57.
.
“Ta” Katathorn was charged in accordance with an order from the Head of the NCPO, issued by Gen. Prayut Chan-o-cha. “Kittipong” was charged under 112 in Surat Thani due to Facebook posts.
In the past month, public prosecutors have filed at least two political cases. The first case was against “Ta” Kathathorn, who participated in the “Open Parliament to Seek Amnesty for Section 112” activity in front of the Parliament building on 11 December 2024. He was charged for igniting and releasing fireworks into the air without prior permission under NCPO Head Order No. 27/2016, issued by Gen. Prayut Chan-o-cha in his capacity as head of the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), by virtue of Section 44 of the 2014 Interim Constitution. This case was filed with the Dusit District Court.
The second case was against Kittiphong Juanwanphen, who faces charges under Section 112 of the Criminal Code and Section 14(3) of the Computer Crimes Act, stemming from two Facebook posts. Last month, he reported to the authorities as scheduled during the pre-trial detention period. It was later confirmed that the prosecutor had already submitted the case to court, and the judge granted bail during the trial proceedings. This case was filed with the Wiang Sa Provincial Court in Surat Thani province.
.
.
Dr. Paul Chambers filed a lawsuit back against the police and the Immigration Commission due to the unlawful revocation of his visa.
Dr. Paul Chambers, an American academic specializing in the topic of civil-military relations in Southeast Asia, filed a lawsuit against the Commissioner-General of the Royal Thai Police, Commissioner of the Immigration Bureau, Immigration Commission, and Royal Thai Police, claiming damages resulting from an unlawful order that revoked his temporary permission to stay in Thailand (visa revocation).
In filing the lawsuit, Dr. Paul requested the Administrative Court to revoke the order that unlawfully revoked his visa (see timeline of events) and demanded that the Royal Thai Police pay compensation for the damages he suffered personally, as well as for the broader impact on academic freedom, amounting to more than 3.6 million baht in total.
Furthermore, it was stated that the actions of the respondent caused Dr. Paul harm in various aspects, including the loss of liberty, degradation of human dignity, severe damage to his reputation, a diminution of his academic credibility, widespread impact on academic freedom, and the termination of his employment as a full-time lecturer at Naresuan University.
.
.
Witness examinations have concluded in the case of Netiwit on charges of evading military conscription on the grounds of conscientious objection.
Witness examinations took place last month in the case of Netiwit on charges of evading military conscription under Section 45 of the Military Service Act B.E. 2497 (1954) on the grounds of conscientious objection. Netiwit’s legal battle marks the first in Thailand where a defendant asserts the right to conscientious objection in the context of military conscription. During witness examination, Netiwit testified about his over 11-year objection against military service, as it conflicts with his moral conscience tied to Buddhist beliefs, particularly the principles of non-killing and non-harming. He considers participation in military conscription, including the act of holding a weapon without yet harming anyone, to already be a strong contradiction to his beliefs and is a principle unable to be compromised.
The court scheduled the verdict hearing for this case to be on 3 November 2025, but as the defendant has filed a motion to the Constitutional Court on whether the Military Act is unconstitutional, the verdict hearing may be postponed to await the Constitutional Court’s verdict.
.
ข่าวหรือบทความที่เกี่ยวข้อง
January 2015: Hearing schedule of five cases assisted by TLHR
Press Release January 2015: Hearing schedule of five cases assisted by TLHR During the latter half of January 2015, there are five cases handled by the Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) to go on trial including; PDRC demonstration site bombing in Trat province (Black Case no. O1213/2557, Trat Provincial Court) Prosecution witness examination […]
Thai Lawyers for Human Rights
19/01/2558 Press Release A Wolf’s Bride verdict to be delivered at the Bangkok Criminal Court at 13.30 on 23 February
For immediate release on 20 February 2015 Press Release A Wolf’s Bride verdict to be delivered at the Bangkok Criminal Court at 13.30 on 23 February On Monday 23 February at 13.30, the Criminal Court is going to deliver a verdict on the Black Case no. 3528/2557 filed by the public prosecutor against Mr. Patiwat […]
admin
20/02/2558 Public Statement Condemning Bomb Attacks in Southern Thailand, Demanding Fair Trial Rights and Transparent Investigation
Public Statement Condemning Bomb Attacks in Southern Thailand, Demanding Fair Trial Rights and Transparent Investigation During 11-14 August 2016, 17 explosions took place in seven provinces in Southern Thailand causing a number of lives and damages. Since 13 August 2016, the Thai authorities have responded by invoking Section 44 of the Constitution of the […]
TLHR
15/08/2559
A roundup on 28 April: Eight alleged admins of Facebook pages raided and held in custody at the CSD, Criminal Court to deliver an order on the habeas corpus case at 10.00am on 29 April
There were two developments on 28 April 2016. First, relatives of the persons held in custody have gone to the Bangkok Criminal Court to file a complaint asking the Court to review the lawfulness of the detention and to have them released from custody. The Court will deliver the verdict on 29 April at 10.00am. […]