September 2024: No. of individuals prosecuted in political cases: 1,959 persons in 1,305 cases

Last September, there was at least one new case under Section 112 and Section 116 each. One more individual has been detained pending trial. One individual convicted under Section 112 has been discharged under the Royal Pardon Decree while the amnesty bills are being considered in Parliament. Meanwhile, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights has submitted a letter of petition urging the Attorney General to consider delaying the prosecution of cases, or to use his discretion to deny prosecuting cases related to political assembly.

According to the monitoring by Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, since the start of the “Free Youth” rally on 18 July 2020 until 30 September 2024, at least 1,959 people have been prosecuted for the rally and political expression situation in 1,305 cases. Compared with August, there were three new cases.

Altogether, there have been at least 4,012 criminal cases, noting that some individuals have been charged in multiple cases.

Prosecution statistics in key offenses are as follows:

1. Section 112 (lèse-majesté) of the Criminal Code: at least 274 individuals in 307 cases

2. Section 116 (sedition) of the Criminal Code: at least 154 individuals in 53 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 206 individuals in 229 cases

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

Of 1,305 cases, 629 cases have reached a final verdict (although some cases remain outstanding, since certain defendants decided to appeal the verdicts while others have not).

Prosecution trends in September 2024 and key events are as follows:

There were two new prosecutions under Section 112 and Section 116 cases in the South, while some inmates serving their time have been discharged following the issuance of the Royal Pardon Decree; one more individual has been detained in custody following indictment for possession of explosives.

In September, there was one new Section 112 case and one new Section 116 case, both of which happened in Phatthalung Province in the South of Thailand. Both were reported to the police by Songchai Nianhom from the “People United to Protect the Monarchy,” a pro-monarchy group. The accused lives outside of the South and is thus burdened with having to travel to the South to defend himself.

A Section 112 case was filed against “Direk” (last name withheld) from Kanchanaburi Province. Allegations against him were filed at the Moeung Phatthalung Police Station for allegedly using his personal Facebook account to comment on a post by Promsorn “Fah” Veerathamjaree who criticized the loyalist groups. The comment by “Direk” alluded to the name of King Rama X. As for Phromsorn, he traveled to answer to the charges under Section 112 last August.

A Section 116 case was filed against “Suchat Sawatsi”, aka “Sing Sanam Luang”, an editor and former National Artist whose title had been revoked. The case was reported to the Srinagarindra Police Station, Phatthalung, for allegedly sharing a video clip by iLaw titled “The 10 unknown facts about #Section112” and for his caption that asked “Why do we need to repeal Section 112? We will elect a political party with a clear policy to ‘Repeal Section 112’ #FreeOurFriends”.

Two people were also reported to have received summons under Section 112 from Khao Chaison Police Station in Phatthalung Province for allegedly commenting on a post in the “Royalist Marketplace” Facebook group. Again, the summons indicated that it was Songchai Niamhom who had reported the case.

As more cases are reported by regular citizens, there is a steady increase in cases in the South, where 103 individuals have been charged in 54 cases. Of these, more than 32 are alleged offenses under Section 112. The number of such cases has been increasing gradually this year, particularly in Phatthalung Province.

Regarding the release of inmates in the past month, “Wat” (pseudonym), a convicted prisoner in a Section 112 case, was discharged on 27 September 2024 as he was eligible for release under the Royal Pardon Decree. He spent 439 days behind bars altogether.

Meanwhile, “Daeng Chinchang”, aka Yongyuth, was denied bail after he was indicted in a case concerning the possession of explosives during the PDRC demonstrations in 2014.

There were other Section 112 cases under the court’s consideration, and at least 7 more verdicts were issued, that is, 2 cases from the court of first instance and 5 cases from the Court of Appeal.

Key cases with verdicts in the Court of First Instance included the cases against Jatupat ‘Pai’ Boonpattararaksa and Atthaphon “Kru Yai” Buaphat for allegedly making speeches about monarchy reforms during the demonstrations in front of the Phu Khiao School and Phu Khiao Police Station. The Phu Khiao Provincial Court convicted and sentenced Jatupat to two years and 12 months, and Atthaphon to two years of imprisonment. Their sentences were not suspended. As a result, both were detained in custody pending the consideration of bail application by the Court of Appeals Region 4. After one night of detention, both were released on bail after a finding of low risk of fleeing.

Another case concerns a person indicted for posting a Facebook message. The Bangkok South Criminal Court sentenced the defendant to 4 years in prison. However, in light of the defendant’s guilty plea, the sentence was reduced to two years in prison and 48 hours of community service.

With respect to cases before the Court of Appeals, in one case the Court upheld the previous verdict to convict Mongkol “Busbas” Thirakot for allegedly posting two Facebook messages. The Court of Appeals Region 5 upheld the Court of First Instance’s verdict to convict and sentence Busbas to four years of imprisonment in a Section 112 case. As a result, Mongkol has been sentenced to a record imprisonment of altogether 81 years in three cases combined. It has since been reduced by one third to 54 years and six months. This is the longest lèse-majesté sentence (after sentence reduction) in Thailand’s history for a person, according to available information.

Similarly, in the case against “Sainam”, who wore a crop top to join a fashion show and wrote messages on his body during the #MyTax protest in 2020, the Court of Appeals for Specialized Cases upheld the 12-month prison sentence. The Court opined that according to the Constitution, people are not allowed to exercise their rights and freedoms in such a hostile manner against the King, and although the defendant did not write such messages, his act could be construed as an insult according to Section 112.

In the case against “Patiharn” for allegedly posting a comment in a post by Somsak Jeamteerasakul regarding a rumor about the ailment of King Rama X, the Court of Appeals upheld the previous verdict to convict and sentence Patiharn to one year and six months in prison without suspension. Since he did not appear at court on judgment day, the Court has since issued an arrest warrant against him.

In two instances, the Courts of Appeals dismissed the cases. In the case against Siwanchalee “Ramil” Wittayasereewat, for his performance art at a sign in front of Chiang Mai University, the prosecutor appealed the verdict and the Court of Appeals Region 5 ruled to dismiss the case, finding that the prosecution evidence lacked credibility. The Court reasoned that although the defendant had made some improper gestures, it could not be deemed an offense against lèse-majesté law as it was the exercise of his freedom of expression under the Constitution.

In another case, “Taem”, a psychiatric patient, was accused of vandalizing portraits of King Rama X installed in three locations in Ubonratchathani Province. The Court of Appeals Region 3 upheld the previous verdict to dismiss the case deeming that although such acts were improper, they were committed while the defendant was having a mental disorder or being mentally infirm, and it was unclear if he had the requisite intent to commit such insults or threaten the King.

The Court of Appeals Region 7 overturned the verdict in the case against “Wanthana” who chanted to oust Prayut, citing international rules on freedom of expression.

Another interesting case this month was the case against “Wanthana O-thong”, who was indicted at the Ratchaburi Kwaeng Court for disobeying the order of competent officials, making loud noises without reasonable cause, and resisting or obstructing an official. The incident happened while she appeared to shout at and criticize Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha when he arrived in his motorcade. The Court of First Instance had previously found Wanthana guilty of all charges and sentenced her to six months and ten days of imprisonment and a fine of 1,000 baht without suspension.

The Court of Appeals Region 7, however, overturned the Court of First Instance’s verdict to acquit Wanthana on all charges, adopting an entirely different jurisprudence for the case. In one part of the judgment, the Court cited the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)’s freedom of expression, particularly the opinions regarding public administration and criticisms leveled against public figures.

The Court found that a person who has received a mandate from the people must be able to endure intense questioning and scrutiny from the people who hold sovereign power. Therefore, lawsuits filed against a member of the public or media for simply expressing dissent are tantamount to an effort to stifle a lawful exercise of freedom of expression. Such practice is unacceptable in a democracy where the rule of law should be respected.

The Court of Appeals’ verdict in this case is interesting and important since it serves to show how international human rights treaties to which Thailand is a party can be used in a judgment.

Courts continue to rule on Emergency Decree cases; TLHR submitted letters urging the Attorney General to postpone or issue non-indictment orders while the House of Representatives considers the amnesty bills.

In the past month, courts continued to issue verdicts in at least four assembly-related cases under the Emergency Decree. In the case against Khana Ratsadon E-san and 19 of its members, who allegedly held a demonstration at the Democracy Monument on 13 October 2020, the Criminal Court acquitted all but two defendants in this case. Defendant Wachirawit was found guilty of damaging properties as a result of hurling color paint at the officials, and defendant Jatuphat was found guilty of violating the Emergency Decree and the Public Assembly Act, as he was deemed an organizer or the assembly.

Similarly, in the case of five Thalufah activists who were organizing their activities in front of the Bhumjaithai Party and in another case against two youth activists where the crowd control police used force to disperse the “Thalufah Village” in front of the Government House early morning on 28 March 2021, courts ruled in both cases to find the defendants guilty of violating the Emergency Decree as they had participated in a public assembly deemed to have potentially spread a disease.

In another case, four individuals retracted their earlier testimonies in order to plead guilty to violating the Emergency Decree as a result of their participation in the #Mob17AugustToPurgeTyrants demonstration in 202. Consequently, the court found the four of them guilty under the Emergency Decree.

Up until now, there are at least 372 cases under the Emergency Decree involving the protests from 2020-2022 which are pending trial. Many activists and individuals continue to bear the legal burdens stemming from these cases.

In the past month, at least 285 cases of protests under the Emergency Decree were still at the investigative stage. It was found that prosecutors had continuously scheduled court hearings to file cases, even though the House of Representatives was preparing to consider amnesty for political cases. One of the proposals of the committee set up by the House was to ask the prosecutors not to file cases if they felt it would not benefit the public while the Amnesty Bill had not yet been passed.

At the end of last month, TLHR has submitted a letter of petition to the Attorney General asking for the delay of prosecution or the use of discretion to avoid prosecuting politically motivated cases, such as cases arising from the Emergency Decree, the Public Assembly Act, or Section 116.

Such mass prosecutions against the public create a burden on society and squander limited resources that are already strained under the country’s judicial system and budget. They also stifle civil rights and create a legal burden for people, in addition to creating ramifications for the people who are stigmatized and labeled as criminals even before being judged in court.

ข่าวหรือบทความที่เกี่ยวข้อง

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights

admin

TLHR

TLHR