October 2024: Six convictions and three dismissals in Section 112 cases, meanwhile public prosecutor persisting on prosecuting cases related to public assemblies during 2020-2021

In October, at least one new Section 112 case was filed, although no additional detainees were held pending trial. Five prisoners who had been convicted were released, including two individuals convicted under Section 112.

Last month, during the witness examination in Section 112 trials, there were instances where the defendants could not be contacted. The Court decided to proceed with the examination of witnesses in absentia, citing Section 172 bis (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, despite objections from the defense attorneys. The attorneys argued that holding the trial in absentia was detrimental to the defendants, as it not only prevented them from presenting relevant evidence in their defense but was also not in the best interest of the judicial process.

Over the past month, rulings were issued in at least nine Section 112 cases, including three dismissals and six convictions. Nevertheless, the public prosecutor continued to pursue prosecutions under the Emergency Decree and Section 112 of the Criminal Code, despite ongoing discussions in Parliament about amnesty for political cases.

From 18 July 2020 until 31 October 2024, at least 1,958 individuals have been charged for participating in public assemblies or expressing their political opinions in 1,307 cases. Compared to September, there were two additional cases.

The total number of individuals charged for participating in public assemblies was reduced by one, since TLHR recently discovered that there was double counting for certain individuals facing multiple cases. This caused the total number of the individuals charged last month to be overreported by one.

Altogether, there have been at least 4,016 cases, although some individuals are charged for multiple offenses.

Prosecution statistics in key offenses;

1. Section 112 (lèse-majesté) of the Criminal Code, at least 275 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 673 cases

4. Violation of the Public Assembly Act, at least 182 individuals in 100 cases

5. Violation of the Computer Crimes Act, at least 207 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

Out of the 1,307 cases, 638 have reached their final verdicts. However, some cases have only been partially concluded, such as when certain defendants appeal their verdicts, while others have not

Prosecution trend in October 2024 and key events are as follows;

One additional Section 112 case was filed in the South, while some prisoners in concluded cases have been released following the Royal Pardon Decree. However, one person was detained after being indicted in an explosives-related case.

Last October, at least one additional Section 112 case was reported in the South (Phatthalung province). Two individuals were summoned by the Khao Chaison Police Station in Phatthalung to answer charges under Section 112 for allegedly posting comments in the ‘Royalist Marketplace’ Facebook group. The summons identified Mr. Songchai Nianhom as the complainant.

In addition, Anchana Heemmina, a Souther-Border Provinces human rights defender from the Duay Jai Group was reportedly charged for violating the Computer Crime Act at Bacho Police Station in Narathiwat Province. The complaint was filed by Lt. Nawin Jaemsrisai, after he was authorized by the Royal Thai Navy. Anchana was accused of posting a Facebook message stating “What should we do? A mosque in Bacho District, Narathiwat, is unable to recover 20,000 baht for water usage from a military base that has been using the mosque’s tap water. Which agency should we approach to file a complaint?”

This is yet another case where a HRD has been taken to court by the armed forces for raising questions and expressing opinions that concern public interest.

Additionally, in the past month, members of the People’s Cannabis Group, who staged a protest at the Chamai Maruchate Bridge to oppose the reclassification of cannabis as a narcotic, were charged under the Public Assembly Act. They have since gone to the Nang Lerng Police Station to acknowledge the charges.

October 2024: No additional detainee, while five prisoners were released. The current number of prisoners stands at least 35.

Last month, there were no new political detainees. However, five individuals were released, including “Phum Hua Lamphong,” who was discharged from the Ban Metta Juvenile Vocational Training Center on 15 October 2024, after completing the rehabilitation program mandated by the Central Juvenile and Family Court. In total, he had been in custody for 364 days—almost a full year—following his conviction under Section 112.

Later the same day, three more convicts were released under the Royal Pardon Royal Decree, including “Sud Jai” (last name withheld), 53, who was convicted in a Ping Pong bomb possession case; “Kitcha” (pseudonym), who was convicted in a Section 112 case; and “Mark” (pseudonym), 24, who was convicted in an explosive possession case. The three had been imprisoned at the Bangkok Remand Prison for 370, 350, and 581 days, respectively.

Meanwhile, “Kritsana” (last name withheld), who was convicted in the Thai Federation case and sentenced to three years in prison by the Supreme Court for his involvement in an illegal association, was released from the Phra Nakhon Sri Ayutthaya Central Prison on 27 October 2024 under the Royal Pardon Royal Decree. He had been detained for a total of 698 days.”

Following the release of five convicted individuals in October, “Thattapong”, who was convicted in an explosive possession case, was released from prison following the Royal Pardon Royal Decree on 4 November 2024. This has brought the number of existing detainees to at least 35. Among these, at least 22 individuals are detainees who were not granted bail while fighting their cases, including 16 people charged under Section 112.

Criminal Court conducted witness examinations in Section 112 cases in absentia, despite attorneys’ objection

Last month, in two Section 112 cases, the Criminal Court ordered witness examinations to be conducted in absentia. The Court invoked Section 172 bis (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, due to the defendants failing to appear in court or being unreachable. The Court subsequently issued arrest warrants and ordered fines for the bailors if the defendants were not apprehended within three months. To prevent delays in the proceedings, the Court decided to proceed with witness examinations in the defendants’ absence.

The first case concerns Parit “Penguin” Chiwarak, whose charge stemmed from his alleged participation and speech at the #Mob14November protest, also known as MobFest, in 2020. After Parit failed to appear in court during the prosecution’s witness examination on 5 June 2024, the Court issued an arrest warrant and postponed the hearing, scheduling the witness examination in absentia last month

Just before the scheduled witness examination, Parit filed a motion to dismiss all of his attorneys in this case through the Court’s Integrated Online Service (CIOS) and expressed his intent to reject the judicial process. In response, his defense attorneys filed a motion to withdraw from the case, in accordance with the defendant’s wishes. They also submitted an objection to conducting the witness examination in absentia, arguing that such a proceeding would not benefit the defendant, as it would prevent the attorneys from presenting relevant evidence in his defense, ultimately undermining the integrity of the judicial process.

Nonetheless, the Court denied the defendant’s request to dismiss his attorneys and did not allow the attorneys to withdraw, as doing so would hinder the progress of the case. The prosecution, however, was still permitted to continue presenting witnesses. The Court also postponed the prosecution’s witness examination to 20 December 2024

In the case against ’Ton Phai’, the Court similarly decided to conduct witness examinations in absentia. Just before the scheduled examination, the defendant’s attorney filed a motion objecting to the witness examination in the defendant’s absence. However, the Court decided to proceed with the examination, reasoning that the defendant had already appeared in court during the preliminary hearing and had presented his defense. Since the defendant failed to appear at the witness examination, the Court issued an arrest warrant for him. While he remains at large, the Court considers that the defendant has waived his right to confront the prosecution’s witnesses

As for the defendant’s objection to the trial in absentia and his request to withdraw his attorneys, the Court denied the motion, citing that it could not be confirmed whether the request was made by the defendant himself or if it reflected his true intention.

The defendant’s attorney subsequently filed a motion asking the Court to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court for a ruling on whether Section 172 bis (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code conflicts with Section 29 of the 2017 Constitution. In the meantime, the Court has decided to proceed with the hearings, but the delivery of any rulings will be postponed pending the Constitutional Court’s decision.

Throughout October 2024, rulings were made in at least nine Section 112 cases, including three dismissals and six convictions

Throughout the past month, rulings were made in at least nine Section 112 cases, including six cases in the Court of First Instance and three in the Court of Appeals.

Noteworthy rulings by the Court of First Instance included the case of ”Nurat” Suphakchaya, who was charged for her appearance in a Lazada advertisement. The Criminal Court acquitted her, ruling that since the King had not yet appointed an heir apparent, Princess Chulabhorn could not be considered a royal family member appointed under the Palace Law. Therefore, the use of the term ‘heir apparent’ in the indictment, and the alleged insult of Princess Chulabhorn, did not qualify as an offense under Section 112.

Similarly, in the case against ‘Toto’ Piyarat, which was dismissed by the Kalasin Provincial Court, the Court raised doubts about whether the defendant had actually posted the message. Given the benefit of the doubt, the defendant was acquitted of charges related to allegedly installing and displaying a banner criticizing the vaccine monopoly.

In the case of convictions without suspension, “Sindhu,” a resident of Chanthaburi, was required to travel to Phatthalung to defend himself against charges that he had posted a comment on the ‘The MalaengtaD’ Facebook page. The Phatthalung Provincial Court convicted him and sentenced him to two years in prison, finding that he was the person who posted the comment, based on the prosecution’s evidence. The Court ruled that the content of the comment was insulting and disparaging toward the King and Queen, causing them to be hated and scorned. He was later granted bail.

Meanwhile, in the case against ‘Get’ Sophon, who was accused of making a speech during a May Day event in 2022, the Criminal Court convicted him and sentenced him to two years in prison. The Court found that his speech contained an allusion to King Rama X, the reigning monarch. Upon reviewing the speech as a whole, the Court concluded that it amounted to an accusation or assertion that King Rama X had stolen welfare and sovereign power from the people

In the cases where convictions were handed down with suspended sentences, one notable example is that of Nutthaphon, who was accused of reposting messages regarding King Rama X. The Songkhla Provincial Court initially sentenced him to three years in prison, which was later reduced to one year and six months due to his guilty plea. The sentence was suspended for three years.

In another case involving ‘Thor Pad,’ the Criminal Court convicted her and sentenced her to three years in prison. However, due to her guilty plea, the sentence was reduced by half to one year and six months, with a three-year suspension.

In addition, there was a case reviewed by the Court of Appeals in which the appeal by the prosecution was not accepted. This case involved ‘Peter,’ who was accused of making a speech referring to the granting of a military rank to ‘Foo Foo,’ a dog raised by the King, as well as criticizing the budget of the monarchy in Udon Thani. The Court of Appeals Region 4 upheld the decision to dismiss the case, finding that the prosecution’s appeal did not clearly demonstrate that the trial court’s ruling was incorrect, erroneous, or improper in any way. Moreover, the court determined that the defendant’s speech did not explicitly mention any specific monarch, and therefore, the elements of Section 112 related to insulting the monarchy were not applicable.

In the case against Hong Teh, who allegedly made a speech alluding to the monarchy during the Chiang Mai Car Mob, the Court of Appeals Region 5 upheld the verdict sentencing him to one year and seven months in prison. The Court found the act to be a serious offense, as the speech was made in front of a large crowd, and found that there was no reason to suspend the sentence.

As for “Ton Mai” who allegedly distributed calendars featuring a yellow duck via the ‘Ratsadon’ Facebook page, the Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the Court of First Instance, sentencing him to two years in prison without suspension. The Court ruled that his actions were directed against the monarchy. In both of these cases, the defendants did not attend the court hearings when the verdicts were delivered, prompting the Court to issue arrest warrants for them as well as the verdict in absentia.

Court of Appeals upheld the verdict to acquit “Ngam Saen Luang” for allegedly posting that tear gas was fired from Boon Rawd Brewery during crackdown on protest

Last month, the Court of Appeals upheld the verdict to dismiss the case against “Ngam Saen Luang” who was accused of posting a message suggesting that tear gas had been fired from within the Boon Rawd Brewery compound during the crackdown on protests near the National Assembly in November 2020. He was charged with ‘importing false computer data into a system in a manner likely to cause harm to the public,’ in violation of the Computer Crime Act

The Court found that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant had the ‘fraudulent’ or ‘deceptive’ intent in posting the photos and messages concerning the plaintiff’s company, which could have caused damage to the public. The defendant’s actions did not fulfill the elements of the offense under Section 14(1) of the Computer Crime Act, and therefore, the defendant was acquitted of the charges.

Regarding the four cases related to Boon Rawd Brewery, the Courts dismissed three of them, while one case was resolved through mediation, with the plaintiff withdrawing the charges. Nevertheless, these legal proceedings have imposed a significant burden on the accused, who have had to defend themselves in court for several years.

Public prosecutors continue to pursue cases related to public assemblies, despite the ongoing deliberation of an Amnesty Bill for political cases in Parliament and a petition submitted by TLHR requesting that these prosecutions be suspended or not pursued at all.

Last month, Thatchaphong “Boy” Kaedam, Charaphee Arjsomboon, and Nawas Liang Wattana were indicted on Section 112 charges, in relation to the public assemblies in front of the Embassy of Germany in 2021. The plaint partly mentions how their statements caused unrest and disaffection amongst the people. Although the speeches did not mention the actions of the King, it alluded to the ascendency to the throne of the King. The three of them have been granted bail pending the trial.

In addition, eight activists have been indicted with the Dusit Kwaeng Court related to the #16OctoberGoingToPathumwanIntersection on 16 October 2020 during the reign of General Prayut Chan-ocha government. A state of serious emergency was then declared in Bangkok in response to the demonstrations led by students and members of the public. “See Thap” was also indicted with the Pathumwan Kwaeng Court for allegedly violating the Emergency Decree following the #Mob17AugustToToppleTyrants in 2021.

This situation occurred despite the fact that the incidents took place over three or four years ago, and although the courts have previously dismissed most of the similar cases involving alleged violations of the Serious Emergency Decree. Additionally, the Parliament is currently deliberating a Bill for amnesty concerning political cases, and TLHR has submitted a petition to the Attorney General requesting that they hold off on prosecuting such cases or, alternatively, exercise their discretion to not proceed with prosecutions that are politically motivated.

In contrast, at least two cases involving alleged violations of the Emergency Decree from 2021 were dismissed by the public prosecutor. One case concerned the “birthday celebration for Mike Rayong” outside of prison, where nine individuals were charged. The other involved a New Year’s Countdown event, also outside of prison, where 24 individuals were charged. In both cases, the prosecutor determined that the activities constituted an exercise of the constitutional right to peaceful assembly and that the events were not conducted in a way that posed a significant risk of spreading disease. As a result, the prosecutor decided not to pursue prosecution. However, this discretionary decision has not been consistently applied, and many other cases related to political protests from 2020 to 2021 continue to be prosecuted.

ข่าวหรือบทความที่เกี่ยวข้อง

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights

admin

TLHR

TLHR