August 2024: No. of individuals prosecuted in political cases: 1,956 individuals in 1,302 cases

In August, there were at least two news cases under Section 112 and two additional detainees. Meanwhile, the Court of First Instance dismissed one more case under the Public Assembly Act, making the trend of verdicts for such cases even more interesting. At the police and prosecutorial levels, preparations for indictments under the Emergency Decree stemming from peaceful demonstrations in 2020-2021 are also underway.

According to Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR), since the Free Youth led public assemblies on 18 July 2020 until 31 August 2024, at least 1,956 individuals have been charged for participating in public assemblies or expressing their political opinions in 1,302 cases. Compared with July, there were only three additional prosecutions in August.

Altogether, there have been at least 4.009 lawsuits against individuals although some of them are charged for multiple offenses.

Prosecution statistics in key offenses;

1. Section 112 (lèse-majesté) of the Criminal Code, at least 273 individuals in 306 cases

2. Section 116 (sedition) of the Criminal Code, at least 152 individuals in 51 cases

3. Violation of the Emergency Decree, at least 1,466 individuals in 672 cases

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

5. Violation of the Computer Crimes Act, at least 203 individuals in 226 cases

6. Contempt of court, at least 43 individuals in 25 cases, and insult of the court, at least 34 individuals in 10 cases

Out of 1,302 cases, 615 cases have concluded/reached final verdicts (some cases remain “partially” ongoing, since certain defendants have chosen to appeal their verdicts, while others have not).

Prosecution trend in August 2024 and key events:

Two new Section 112 cases in the South, two new detainees. Be on the lookout for the release of some detainees in concluded cases, following royal pardons issued by the Royal Decree.

In August, two new cases under Section 112 of the Criminal Code emerged in the South, specifically in Phatthalung province. The complaints were lodged with the police by Songchai Nianhom, a member of the Monarch Protection Group. Since the individuals accused in these cases do not reside in the South, a considerable burden has been placed on them to travel for their defense.

The first case was filed against Phromson “Fah” Wirathamchari at the Phatthalung Police Station, related to his Facebook posts criticizing loyalist groups while also referencing King Rama X on 23 September 2022. This marks the sixth Section 112 case against Fah, which required him to travel from Bangkok to defend himself in Phatthalung.

In another case, police from the same station revealed that a resident of Kanchanaburi has been summoned to respond to charges stemming from comments made on Fah’s post. He has been contacted to report to the police station there.

This situation has brought the total number of Section 112 cases since 2020 to at least 306, with more than a dozen of those reported by Songchai.

In the same month, the Courts have ruled in at least five cases: two by the Court of First Instance, two by the Court of Appeals, and one by the Supreme Court.

Key cases included that of Tiwagon Withiton, who faced charges for posting a photo of himself in a T-shirt that read, “I have lost faith in the monarchy,” along with another post urging the monarchy to stop the enforcement of Section 112 and to release four leaders of the Ratsadon Group. Initially, the Khon Kaen Provincial Court dismissed all charges, but the prosecution appealed the decision. The Court of Appeals Region 4 subsequently overturned the initial ruling, finding him guilty on all counts and sentencing him to six years in prison. Tiwagon’s request for bail was denied while he awaits his appeal to the Supreme Court. The rulings of both courts present a stark contrast in their findings.

Additionally, there is the case against “New” Jatuporn, who wore a traditional Thai costume while participating in a mock fashion show during the #Mob29October 2020 event. The Court of Appeals upheld the Lower Court’s verdict, finding her guilty based on her actions, which were interpreted as an attempt to mimic the role of Her Majesty the Queen, and sentenced her to two years in prison. After spending two nights in detention, the Supreme Court granted her bail, determining that there was no indication of a flight risk.

The lack of consistency in bail decisions remains a key issue.

One notable case that reached the Supreme Court involved “Buppha,” a psychiatric patient who was indicted for posting 13 photos with captions on her personal Facebook account between 2015 and 2016. Initially tried in military court, her case was transferred to the Chonburi Provincial Court following the effective dissolution of the NCPO. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found her guilty only under Section 14 (3) of the Computer Crime Act for four messages related to King Rama IX and the Heir Apparent at the time the offenses were allegedly committed. She was acquitted of charges concerning other members of the royal family. The court’s ruling, which limited legal protections under Section 112 to certain individuals, invites further examination of the full verdict in this case.

In two other cases tried in the Court of First Instance, one involved “Tee,” a student from Naresuan University, whose charge stemmed from distributing a book that compiled speeches related to Section 112. The Phitsanulok Provincial Court found him guilty as charged, concluding that he was a leader in the activity and that certain content of the book violated Section 112. He was sentenced to three years in prison. However, the Court noted that only a police officer, who disguised himself, had received the book, and no members of the public had come into contact with it. Given that minimal “damage” had occurred, the Court decided to suspend his sentence for two years.

In two other cases tried in the Court of First Instance including the case against “Tee” , a student of Naresuan University for allegedly handing out a book that compiled speeches related to Section 112, the Phitsanulok Provincial Court found him guilty as charged. The Court was convinced by the prosecution’s evidence that the defendant was a leader on the activity and certain content of the book was found to be in violation of Section 112. He was therefore convicted and sentenced to three years of imprisonment, although the Court also found that it was only the police official who disguised himself to receive the book from the defendant, while no one else appeared to have received the book from him. Considering that not so much “damage” has been done, the Court decided to suspend the sentence for two years.

As for “Eye” Kanruethai, she has become the latest individual to be imprisoned, after being convicted and sentenced to eight years and 48 months for allegedly posting eight messages on Facebook. The Court of Appeals denied her bail, citing concerns that there were reasonable grounds to believe she might flee. Consequently, she is currently being held at the Central Women’s Correctional Institution.

As of early September, there were at least 29 detainees in connection with Section 112 cases, including 16 awaiting trial and 12 whose cases have reached final verdicts. This month, it’s important to monitor potential releases and reductions in sentences for inmates across various prisons, following a royal pardon issued through a royal decree in mid-August.

A series of cases under the Public Assembly Act have been dismissed by the courts, which have increasingly interpreted the laws more strictly. However, defendants have had to bear the burden of fighting these legal battles

In August, there were no cases related to public assemblies being reported. However, the court did issue a ruling in one case involving Thanaporn “Mai” Wichan, a labor rights activist, and “Akin” (a pseudonym), a student who participated in the “WHAT HAPPENED IN THAILAND” political activity, which included a march from Asoke Intersection to the APEC 2022 meeting venue on 17 November 2022.

The Bangkok South District Court dismissed the case against the defendants for failing to notify authorities of the public assembly, as well as for allegedly using a sound system without permission, citing insufficient evidence to confirm that they were the organizers of the assembly. However, the Court imposed a fine of 5,000 baht on Akin for the disposal of waste on a public road, in violation of the Act on the Main tenancy of the Cleanliness and Orderliness B.E. 2532 (1992).

According to TLHR, in the latter half of this year, the courts have dismissed at least three cases related to the Public Assembly Act, stemming from public assemblies during APEC 2022. In addition to the current case, there was one involving the “Sai Ew Rampaging the APEC” protest”, where demonstrators marched and held banners opposing the One-China policy, as well as another case concerning a political activity demanding justice for the loss of “Payu Dao Din’s” eyesight. In both instances, the courts ruled that the case did not constitute public assemblies, as there was no attempt to encourage passersby to join the protests.

In addition, the organizers of a May Day march in 2023 were reportedly acquitted. The Dusit Kwaeng Court ruled to dismiss the case, stating that the event was part of a traditional celebration and thus did not fall under the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Public Assembly Act.

Overall, the situation regarding the Public Assembly Act indicates that several courts are increasingly interpreting the law strictly to avoid holding individuals liable as organizers. The courts did not classify all defendants as organizers required to notify authorities, nor did they categorize all public activities as public assemblies subject to the Act. However, fines are still imposed for certain actions, and the police continue to pursue legal actions against participants in these assemblies, forcing them to defend themselves in court.

Meanwhile, from late August to early September, there were ongoing cases related to the Public Assembly Act, stemming from protests in 2020-2021 that remained under investigation. In some of these cases, police and public prosecutors have begun to move forward with proceedings, setting the stage for potential indictments. This development occurs even as Parliament deliberates a bill for political amnesty, highlighting that the justice system continues to be actively utilized to initiate legal actions against those involved in public assemblies.