June 2024: A total of 1,954 individuals prosecuted in 1,297 political cases

June 2024
Total number of politically charged personsAltogether 1,954 persons in 1,297 cases
	No. of alleged offenders	No. of cases
Section 112	272	303
Section 116	152	50
Violating Emergency Decree	1,466	671
Public Assembly Act	181	99
Computer Crimes Act	202	225
Contempt of Court	43	25
	(At least 34 persons indicted in 10 contempt of court cases)
*Statistics covering 18 July 2020 until 30 June 2024)

Last June did not see a significant increase in legal cases related to political expression. However, proceedings concerning cases related to public assembly and Section 112 persisted, with a number of cases awaiting witness examinations and verdicts. In the past month, verdicts were issued in five Section 112 cases, two of which were issued by the Appeals Court, with the Court overturning the rulings of the Courts of First Instance to find the defendants guilty. Meanwhile, the Courts have dismissed one case each under the Emergency Decree and the Public Assembly Act. An additional individual has been incarcerated for allegedly participating in political assemblies and elbowing an official after his arrest in 2021. His case has reached a final verdict.

According to the Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR), since the Free Youth protests on 18 July 2020 until 30 June 2024, at least 1,954 individuals have been charged for participating in public assemblies or expressing their political opinions in 1,297 cases.

Compared with May, there was only one new prosecution in June, namely one additional case related to the Emergency Decree before the court. Because the defendants pleaded differently, the prosecution had to handle their cases separately: one defendant pleaded guilty, while the other pleaded not guilty. Consequently, the total number of cases needs to be recalculated.

Altogether, there have been at least 4.003 lawsuits against individuals although some of them were charged with multiple offenses.

Prosecution statistics in key offenses;

1. “Lèse-Majesté” pursuant to Section 112 of the Criminal Code, at least 272 individuals in 303 cases

2. Sedition pursuant to Section 116 of the Criminal Code, at least 152 individuals in 50 cases

3. Violation of the Emergency Decree, at least 1,466 individuals in 671 cases

4. Violation of the Public Assembly Act, at least 181 individuals in 99 cases

5. Violation of the Computer Crimes Act, at least 202 individuals in 225 cases

6. Contempt of court, at least 42 individuals in 24 cases, and insult of the court, at least 34 individuals in 10 cases

Of 1,297 cases, 590 have reached final verdicts. There are more than 707 ongoing cases that are being pursued at different stages of the justice system.

Prosecution trend in June 2024 and key events are as follows:

Rulings made in five Section 112 cases, with the Appeals Court overturning the initial verdicts of Courts of First Instance in two cases

There was no new case under Section 112 in June, although the proceedings of the existing cases continued. Courts have issued verdicts in at least five cases, three by the Courts of First Instance and two by the Appeals Courts.

Notably, there was a case against “Petch-Beam,” two young activists who were indicted for allegedly participating in the #AnyoneLikeWearingCropTopAndWalkingAroundSiamParagon activity on 20 December 2020. In this case, the two defendants argued that they were simply participating in the activity and did not solicit anyone to join them. They also argued their ways of expression could not be considered an offense under Section 112.

The Central Juvenile and Family Court, however, found both guilty as charged, reasoning that both defendants should have walked away from the activity if they really had no defamatory and offensive intentions once they saw the expressions and messages written on the bodies of their fellow activists. Because the defendants stayed put, it could be reasonably assumed that the defendants agreed with the actions of their fellow activists. The Court convicted the two and sentenced them each to three years in prison. Since both were only 17 years old at the time of the alleged offense, the punishment was reduced by half to one year and six months. The prison sentence was then converted to receiving training at the Bangkok Juvenile Vocational Training Center for at least one year and up to two years. They are also required to participate in at least three courses.

Both have been granted bail pending the appeal. It is concerning that the Court, in its judgment, did not only focus on how both defendants behaved themselves. Instead, the Court assumed that their refusal to leave the activity meant they agreed with the acts of expression by other activists. This demonstrates the Court’s broad interpretation of defendants’ intentions, potentially making mere participation inactivities or public assemblies organized by others a wrongful act.

Moreover, in the two cases before the Courts of First Instance, the defendants pleaded guilty. The Courts convicted the defendants and sentenced them to suspended prison terms. This included the case against “Siao Pao,” for allegedly singing the song “Chok Dee Mee Khon Thai” (Fortunate to Have Thai People), and the case against Woraphon in Chumphon province which involved him changing his Facebook’s profile picture.

As for the Appeals Courts’ cases, the Courts overturned the initial rulings of the Courts of First Instance in two cases in June, including the case against Phachara for allegedly posting a message in the Royalist Marketplace Facebook Group. In the original ruling, the Court of First Instance dismissed the case, citing a lack of evidence to prove that it was the defendant who posted the comment. The Appeals Court Region 1, however, overturned the initial verdict, finding the defendant guilty and sentenced him to two years in prison. The Court had reasons to believe that the defendant was the one who posted the message. Phachara has been granted bail pending appeal before the Supreme Court.

In another case against “Somphon’,” who allegedly hurled red liquid at His Majesty’s portrait in front of Lotus’s Rangsit, the Appeals Court Region 1 overturned the initial verdict dismissing the case, finding him guilty under Section 112. In its ruling, the Court looked at how the defendant was hurling water-based paint at the pictures in various places. The Court reasoned that it could be assumed the defendant was specifically targeting portraits of HM King Rama X. Therefore, his conduct constituted an offense under Section 112. The Court sentenced him to two years in prison. He has been granted bail pending his appeal before the Supreme Court.

Somphon has been charged in five cases for hurling red liquid at His Majesty’s portraits at various places. Previously, the Court of First Instance ruled to acquit him from charges under Section 112 (although he was convicted and sentenced to prison for damage done to property). He received both suspended and unsuspended sentences in these cases. However, this was the first time the Appeals Court ruled contrary to the precedent set by the Court of First Instance. This is concerning and warrants further monitoring.

Overall, the number of Section 112 cases has not seen a significant increase in 2024. During the first half of the year, there were at least 16 new cases related to this offense. However, the total number of cases that went to trial from 2020 to 2023 is quite staggering. Courts have consistently rendered verdicts in these cases. In the first half of 2024 alone, verdicts were delivered in at least 43 cases: 29 by the Court of First Instance, 13 by the Appeals Court, and one by the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, witness examinations proceeded vigorously in Section 112 cases in the Court of First Instance, with a notable example being the case against lawyer Arnon Nampa, who fought and advocated for monarchy reforms. During trial, Arnon requested the Court to subpoena evidence, including the official itineraries of King Rama X during his stays in Germany. This was declined by the Court. In response, Arnon filed a motion challenging the Court’s decision. He has also passionately defended his case in the courtroom while providing testimony to the Court.

Courts dismissing more cases concerning the Emergency Decree & the Public Assembly Act

Although there was no new case from public assembly in June, courts have ruled in two more important cases concerning violations of the Emergency Decree, including the case concerning a no-confidence debate outside parliament, or #Mob20Feb2021, which took place in front of the parliament building and involved 16 activists. The Dusit District Court acquitted all 16 activists in this case, concluding that the prosecution failed to prove the defendants were the organizers as charged. The Court ruled that it was the police who placed iron barricades and attempted to disperse the participants, resulting in the crowded conditions.

In another case against “Sainam,” who was indicted for his participation in the #Mob13Aug21, the Court of Appeals for Specialized Cases upheld the verdict of the Court of First Instance, finding him guilty as charged and imposing a fine of 4,000 baht. Interestingly, the prosecutor decided to drop charges against the other 13 adult participants in the same public assembly, determining that the event took place in an open-air area with adequate ventilation, thus not constituting a crowded space. This decision contrasts with the rulings made by the children’s court in Sainam’s case.

Courts have rendered varied rulings – either acquitting or convicting defendants involved in public assemblies during the declaration of the State of Emergency. These outcomes appear to depend on the personal attitudes or ideologies of individual judges, rather than on consistent standards. Similarly, decisions regarding whether to prosecute or drop cases have also shown inconsistency depending on the prosecutor’s discretion.

In addition, courts also ruled in cases under the Public Assembly Act against six activists for their march to demand the restoration of eyesight for “Payu Daodin” on 23 November 2022, in the wake of the crackdown of the #RatsadonStopAPEC protest. The Court dismissed the case, ruling that the march did not constitute a public assembly under the law because there was no effort made to disseminate information or solicit public participation. However, the Court convicted and fined the four defendants 500 baht each for offenses under the Road Traffic Act, which was related to the marching on the street and causing traffic obstruction. In contrast, it acquitted two journalists who were solely livestreaming the event.

The widespread use of the Public Assembly Act to indiscriminately charge individuals reflects the authorities’ aim to exert control over the public rather than to use the laws to facilitate peaceful activities and strike a balance between the right to protest and others’ right to movement.

Other cases involving suspended sentences for contempt of court, dismissals for hoisting a flag, and imprisonment for elbowing officials leading to one additional prisoner

In June, there were other cases concerning political expression in which courts have made interesting rulings. This includes the two contempt of court cases against Nutchanon Pairoj, an activist and recent graduate of Thammasat University for participating in a public assembly demanding the right to bail in front of the Criminal Court on 29 and 30 April 2021. Both cases have reached the Supreme Court.

Previously, the Appeals Court convicted and sentenced him to one month and 15 days of detention, respectively. Although the Supreme Court appeared to concur with the ruling of the Appeals Court, it added that since the defendant only held his public assembly at the steps in front of the court building, and did not enter the building, it might be better to instead suspend his prison sentence and put him under probation. Therefore, the prison sentence was converted to detention, which was also suspended, and the defendant was placed on probation. Additionally, he was ordered to perform public services. Both cases against Nutchanon have thus concluded.

In the case against Pimchanok and Benja, who were indicted for offenses under Section 118 of the Criminal Code and the Flag Act for hoisting a red piece of cloth written with the number “112” in front of the Klong Luang Police Station on 15 January 2021, the Thanyaburi Provincial Court acquitted them of the primary charges, stating there was insufficient evidence to prove the two defendants had shown disrespect to the national flag or harmed the nation’s reputation. However, the Court found them guilty of the minor offense of lowering the flag before 6 pm and fined each of them 400 baht.

Finally, there was the case against Yongyuth, 26, a member of the public accused of physically assaulting public officials, including elbowing police officers, after his arrest at Major Cineplex Ratchayothin before the #Mob6March21 public assembly. In this instance, the defendant admitted to committing the act without realizing the person was a public official. Following the incident, he attempted to apologize and offer compensation to the official.

The case reached the Supreme Court, which upheld the Appeals Court’s verdict to convict and sentence him to one year of imprisonment. This sentence was later reduced to six months due to his guilty plea. The Court, however, did not find sufficient justification in the claim that the defendant had no prior criminal record and needed to support his family. Thus, he was denied the request to suspend the sentence. Consequently, Yongyuth was added to the list of detainees in a concluded case.