December 2024: Arnon convicted in two successive cases under Section 112 - Court of Appeals overturning verdict on royal portrait pain-throwing case - More verdicts delivered in five public assembly cases

In December 2024, there were no new cases related to freedom of expression or public assemblies. However, several similar cases remain pending in the courts. Throughout the month, new verdicts have been issued in at least eight Section 112 cases and five political assembly cases. Notable among these involved lawyer Arnon Nampa, who was sentenced in two separate cases within the same month, amidst questions about his fair trial rights. Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals Region 1 overturned a previous verdict in the case against “Somphon” for throwing paint at royal portraits, with two separate rulings. “Amp Nawat”, however, was imprisoned, following the denial of his bail request while awaiting his appeal to the Supreme Court.

In addition, the Courts dismissed charges under violations of the Emergency Decree in the Thalu Fah village case, despite it being the case with the highest number of defendants during the 2020-2022 pro-democracy movement. There is also a case against three activists in Chiang Mai, who have been retrospectively charged with defaming the Constitutional Court following their “Rama Tulakarn” activities since 2022. Such retrospective charges against those exercising their right to freedom of expression during past protests continue to emerge periodically.

According to the Thai Lawyers for Human Rights’ documentation, from the “Free Youth” assembly on 18 July 2020 until 31 December 2024, at least 1,960 individuals have been charged for participating in public assemblies or expressing their political opinions in at least 1,311 cases.

Compared to November, there was one additional case recorded, stemming from the #Mob18July2021 public assembly. This was not a new charge, but rather a result of the police splitting the original case into two separate cases when submitting the investigation report to the public prosecutor. As a result, the two cases fall under two separate court jurisdictions, and the case count was updated accordingly.

Altogether, there have been at least 4,022 charges brought against individuals, although some of them face multiple charges across different cases.

Prosecution statistics in key offences;

1. Section 112 (lèse-majesté) of the Criminal Code, at least 276 individuals in 308 cases (Of this, at least 162 cases have stemmed from reports to the police made by members of the public.)

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 674 cases

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

5. Violation of the Computer Crimes Act, at least 208 individuals in 230 cases

6. Contempt of court, at least 43 individuals in 25 cases, and insult of the court, at least 37 individuals in 11 cases

Of 1,311 cases, 661 cases have reached their final verdicts (although some cases remain outstanding, since certain defendants decided to appeal their verdicts, while others have not).

Prosecution trends and key events in December 2024;

Rulings made in eight new Section 112 cases: Two of which were against Arnon – Court of Appeals overturning verdict on royal portrait pain-throwing case.

Although no new Section 112 cases were reported in December 2024, the courts still rendered verdicts in at least eight cases: four of which by the Court of First Instance, and another four by the Court of Appeals.

Among the key cases were two cases against Arnon Nampa: the posting of the letter, also known as the #RatsadonSan case, and the speech at the Harry Potter 1 protest case. In both cases, Arnon was found guilty under Section 112. In the first case, he was sentenced to three years in prison, but his sentence was reduced to two years due to his valuable testimony. In the second case, he was initially sentenced to four years in prison, which was later reduced to two years and eight months. In this latter case, Arnon faced difficulties in his defense, as the court refused to subpoena evidence he had requested and ordered that the trial be conducted behind-closed-doors. Arnon protested the court’s actions by refusing to cross-examine prosecution witnesses or present his own witnesses, amidst ongoing concerns over the fairness of the trial and the impartiality of the judiciary.

As a result of the verdicts in the two cases, Arnon has been convicted in six Section 112 cases (in addition to the two-month sentence in a case against the Emergency Decree). His total sentence is 18 years, 10 months, and 20 days. All of these cases are still pending appeal in the courts, and none has reached its final verdict.

In December, rulings were also issued in three cases against “Somphon,” who faced charges under Section 112 for allegedly throwing paint at royal portraits in various locations. Initially, the Pathumthani Provincial Court dismissed the two Section 112 charges against him, convicting him only for mischief, as the court believed he intended to damage private property. However, the public prosecutor appealed the verdict, and the Court of Appeals Region 1 overturned the judgment in both cases to find “Somphon” guilty under Section 112. The court concluded that Somphon had thrown paint in multiple locations with the sole intent of targeting the royal portraits, thereby defaming the King.

Meanwhile, the Criminal Court has made a similar ruling in another case against Somphon, the offence of which took place in Don Muang District. Due to Somphon’s absence in the verdict hearing of the three cases led to an arrest warrant being issued against him.

In addition, the Court of Appeals Region 1 upheld the dismissal of Section 112 charges in the case against “Siraphat,” who was accused of removing a royal portrait from a security guard booth in his housing estate and later throwing its picture frame into a canal. The court was convinced that his intention was solely to commit a nighttime robbery, not to defame the King. However, the defendant was still found guilty under the Emergency Decree and for committing a nighttime robbery, although his prison sentence was suspended.

In the case against “Amp” Nawat Liangwattana, an activist accused of delivering a speech during the #Mob13Feb2021 public assembly, the Court of Appeals upheld the verdict previously issued by the Court of First Instance, sentencing him to one year and seven months in prison. His bail was denied pending the appeal, making Amp the latest individual detained under Section 112 in December.

Finally, the Criminal Court ruled in a case against three individuals who were accused of setting fire to a royal portrait in front of the Ministry of Labour, following the #Mob14Sept2021 public assembly. All of them have been found guilty as charged and sentenced to one year and six months in prison each. However, the court decided to suspend their prison sentences for three years, considering that the defendants showed remorse, had stable employment, and had no prior prison sentences. They were also required to report to the probation office for two years and perform 24 hours of community service. As a result, the three individuals avoided imprisonment, but it remains to be seen whether the public prosecutor will appeal the verdict.

In December, efforts were made to apply for bail for several political prisoners to mark International Human Rights Day. However, only one individual, detained in a Section 112 case, namely “Boom Chirawat,” was granted the opportunity to apply for bail. The Supreme Court allowed him to apply after he had spent over a year behind bars and despite nine previous unsuccessful attempts to secure bail. In 2024, at least 21 new Section 112 cases were filed, while at least 82 cases were still pending in courts at various levels, including those that had already seen verdicts. The number of verdicts issued by the Court of Appeals in these cases increased. This has led to more defendants being detained, with several cases reaching their final verdicts. This trend is expected to continue into 2025.

Rulings made in at least five cases stemming from public assemblies between 2020-2022, in which there were both dismissals and convictions

Regarding other cases related to public assemblies, rulings were made in five cases last month, including three for offences under the Emergency Decree, one under the Public Assembly Act, and one for other forms of public expression.

As for acquittals under the Emergency Decree, one case involved Arnon Nampa, who gave a speech at the Harry Potter-themed protest. The Criminal Court found that the event only involved a small stage, most participants wore facemasks, disease screening measures were in place, and it was held in an open area peacefully. The court also concluded that Arnon was not the organizer, so the charge related to the Emergency Decree was dismissed, although he was found guilty of violating Section 112.

In the Thalu Fah village case, involving 61 defendants, the Dusit Kwaeng Court ruled that the assembly was held in an open, uncrowded area, with most participants wearing facemasks and a small stage set up. The protest was considered peaceful and constitutionally protected, with no disturbances or weapons. However, the defendants were fined 500 baht each for traffic obstruction.

As for the conviction in the CarMob Kamphaeng Phet case, the Court of Appeals Region 6 upheld its verdict for the third time, ruling that the defendants were responsible as organizers of the protest, which took place during the Emergency Decree’s ban on such activities. However, the Court did not address whether the event posed a risk for spreading COVID-19. Consequently, the defendants plan to appeal the decision.

In the case under the Public Assembly Act, the Dusit Kwaeng Court ruled on the case of 25 activists and members of the public who participated in the #RatsadonStopAPEC2022 protest on November 18, 2022. The court found 24 defendants guilty as charged and fined them 2,500 baht each, while acquitting one defendant due to insufficient evidence to prove their participation in the assembly. In this case, the defendants argued that the use of force by the authorities was excessive and disproportionate to the circumstances, and that unlawful orders had been issued. However, the court placed significant weight on the evidence presented by the authorities in its decision.

In addition, in a case involving five activists from Ratsadon Khon Kaen, who were charged with causing mischief for throwing paint at the sign of the Provincial Police Region 4 during the Car Mob Khon Kaen 3 in 2021, the Khon Kaen Kwaeng Court found all defendants guilty as charged. Each was sentenced to two months and ten days in prison and fined 14,000 baht, though their prison sentences were suspended for one year. The Court ruled that the defendants’ actions caused public nuisance and damage to public property. Despite the defendants’ argument that they were exercising their constitutional right to freedom of expression by voicing dissatisfaction with the government and police for cracking down on public assemblies in Bangkok, and that they had no intention to damage the property since the paint used was water-based and erasable, the Court maintained its judgment.

Charges of “Defaming the Constitutional Court” pressed against three activists in Chiang Mai

Finally, in the third case filed in December, three activists in Chiang Mai were retrospectively charged with “defaming the Constitutional Court” following their involvement in the “Rama Tulakarn” activity. The activity, which took place at Ang Kaew, Chiang Mai University on September 30, 2022, was a form of protest against the Constitutional Court’s ruling on the eight-year tenure of Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha.

A person authorized by the Constitutional Court filed a report at the Bhubing Rajanives Police Station, accusing the three activists of making a speech related to the Court, distributing images of the judges, using offensive language against the Court, and performing card stunts to mimic the phrase “Rama Tulakarn.” According to the accuser (and their dictionary), the phrase was interpreted to imply that the judges were oppressing the Thai people. The three activists denied all charges.Since 2020, three cases have been filed by the Office of the Constitutional Court concerning political expressions. In addition to the Chiang Mai case, two other cases were reported against six students and activists at the Muang Chiang Mai Police Station related to the same incident, though the alleged offences took place at different locations. These cases are still under police investigation. We will continue to monitor the cases filed by judges themselves.

ข่าวหรือบทความที่เกี่ยวข้อง

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights

admin

TLHR

TLHR