March 2025: More 112-116 cases in the South; ten-year-imprisonment for messages posted in 2014 and bail denial; Supreme Administrative Court of Thailand revoked outdated regulations on student hairstyles

Three additional cases related to political expression were reported in March 2025. Two of them occurred in the South: “Jiradee” was prosecuted under Section 112 in Phatthalung Province, while “Poon” Thanapat was charged under Section 116. Both individuals had arrest warrants issued against them, and the same person—Chair of the People Protecting the Monarchy Group—filed the complaints. The third case involved ‘Weerawat,’ who was charged with contempt of court, a case that Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) has only recently become aware of.

In addition, in a Section 116 case related to the #ThammasatWillNotTolerate assembly, the court sentenced some of the defendants to nine months in prison without suspension. In the contempt of court case against Arnon, the court read the ruling in the arraignment room, which was not open to the public that came to observe the case. He was sentenced to the maximum penalty of six months in prison. Further details are still being monitored.

Another significant case was the ‘student hairstyle case,’ in which the Supreme Administrative Court ordered the immediate revocation of the Ministerial Regulation on student hairstyles, ruling that it constituted an infringement on bodily autonomy and failed to reflect the evolving social context.

Additionally, there were rulings in four cases related to the Emergency Decree and the Public Assembly Act. One of these, concerning the #14Oct2020Protest, resulted in a full acquittal, as the court found that the prosecution failed to prove the defendants were organizers of the event and that they had no intent to damage any plants. Regarding new prosecutions, it was found that in the past month, public prosecutors continued to indict four new cases under the Emergency Decree, despite the trend of courts increasingly issuing acquittals when defendants choose to contest the charges.

According to the Thai Lawyers for Human Rights’ documentation, since the “Free Youth” assembly on 18 July 2020 until 31 March 2025, at least 1,962 individuals have been charged for participating in public assemblies or expressing their political opinions in 1,318 cases. Compared with February 2025, there have been three additional cases.

Altogether, there have been at least 4,029 instances of prosecution, counting each charge separately even if filed against the same individual in multiple cases.

Prosecution statistics in key offences;

1. Section 112 (lèse-majesté) of the Criminal Code, at least 278 individuals in 311 cases (Of this, at least 164 cases have stemmed from reports to the police made by members of the public.)

2. Section 116 (sedition) of the Criminal Code, at least 156 individuals in 55 cases

3. Violation of the Emergency Decree, at least 1,466 individuals in 675 cases

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

5. Violation of the Computer Crimes Act, at least 210 individuals in 233 cases

6. Contempt of court, at least 45 individuals in 27 cases, and insult of the court, at least 37 individuals in 11 cases

Of the 1,318 cases, 691 cases have reached their final verdicts (although some cases remain outstanding, since certain defendants decided to appeal the verdicts, while others have not).

Prosecution trend in March 2025 and key events;

Section 112–116 Cases Continue to Rise in the South, with Leaders of the People Protecting the Monarchy Group Still Acting as Complainants — Two Individuals Arrested in Bangkok and Transferred South

The past month saw a continued rise in cases in the southern region under Sections 112 and 116. An activist and a member of the public were arrested in Bangkok and transported over long distances to face charges in Trang and Phatthalung provinces. As with previous cases, the complaints were filed by leaders of the People Protecting the Monarchy Group.

On 27 March 2025, two individuals were arrested on the same day. The first was “Jiradee” (pseudonym), a 35-year-old Bangkok resident, who was apprehended by officers from the Crime Suppression Division at her workplace. The arrest was made under a warrant issued by the Phatthalung Provincial Court on 28 August 2023, for an alleged violation of Section 112. She was subsequently transferred to Khuan Khanun Police Station in Phatthalung Province. It was later revealed that the charge stemmed from comments she posted on Twitter about “good and evil people,” in which she mentioned King Rama X and Thaksin Shinawatra.

Jiradee had previously responded to a police summons and was questioned as a witness about two years ago. However, the police later requested an arrest warrant from the court to formally press charges. The warrant was carried out nearly two years after it was issued. She was detained for a total of three days before the Phatthalung Provincial Court granted her bail during the investigation phase. Jiradee has denied all charges.

Another person, “Poon” Thanapat, a 22-year-old activist from the Thalufah Group, was arrested under a warrant issued by the Trang Provincial Court on 7 March 2025. The warrant was executed when he went to the Pathumwan Police Station to notify them of a public assembly he intended to organize. He was charged with “sedition” under Section 116 of the Penal Code and was subsequently transferred to the Huai Yot Police Station for further processing. It was later revealed that the charge was related to a photograph showing him participating in a student parade while holding a banner reading ‘Nation, Religion, People.’ The photo had been posted on the “Thalufah” Facebook page on 13 January 2023.

Thanapat was granted bail pending investigation after being detained for two days. He has denied all charges.

Both of these cases were filed by the same individual, Songchai Nianhom, the Chair of the People Protecting the Monarchy Group. This effort has led to the filing of Section 112 and 116 cases across several provinces in the South, with at least 17 people facing charges as a result. These cases are part of a growing trend of such cases continuing to rise in the South.

Another new case involves a contempt of court charge against “Weerawat” (last name withheld), who had been detained in a separate case involving the possession of explosive materials during the #Mob19Sept21 protest. TLHR was only recently informed that he has been serving a sentence since March 2024. He is now facing an additional contempt of court charge and has been sentenced to one month and 15 days in prison. The details of this new case are still unclear, but both cases have already reached their final verdicts.

A summary of verdicts

March 2025

Court	Case	Verdict
Thanyaburi Provincial CourtSection 112	“Fah” PromsonGathering to demand release of Sirichai Nathuang in 2021	Sentenced toTwo-year-and-ten-month-in prisonWithout suspensionAllowed to post bail
Bangkok South Criminal CourtSection 112	“Pim” ThanruethaiMaking speeches to demand MPs and Senators to respect people’s votes during “Respect My Vote” assembly at Bangkok Art and Culture Centre (BACC) in 2023	Sentenced to one-year-and-six-month-imprisonment Suspended for two years
Criminal CourtComputer Crimes Act	“Wijit”Posting ten messages alluding to monarchy and military coup on Facebook with accompanying photos	Sentenced toTen-year-imprisonmentWithout suspensionNot allowed to post bail
Bangkok South Criminal CourtSection 112	“Jay Juang”Making speeches about royal motorcade budget in front of South Bangkok Criminal Court in 2022	Sentenced toTwo-year-imprisonmentSuspended for two years
Krabi Provincial CourtSection 112	“Donphon”Posting comments in a post about Royal Arches in the Royalist Marketplace group in 2023	Sentenced toOne-year-and-six-month-imprisonmentSuspended for one year
Bangkok South Criminal CourtSection 112	“Tee – Benja – Big”Making speeches during #RatsadonToReachCeiling assembly on 24 June 2021	Tee-Benja sentenced to four years in prison and 20,200 baht fine, Big sentenced to three years and 200 baht fine, all prison sentences suspended for five years
Chiang Mai Provincial CourtSection 112	“Arnon Nampa”Making speeches at the “Hillside Party and Birthday Cake Blowing” at Chiang Mai University Art Center in 2020	Sentenced toTwo-year-imprisonmentWithout suspension

Conviction in all six Section 112 cases – Computer Crime Act case led to 10-year-prison sentence without bail

In the past month, at least six Section 112 cases have been ruled on, all at the Lower Court level. These cases involved defendants who either pleaded guilty or contested the charges. The courts convicted all of them, with varied outcomes in terms of whether sentences were suspended or not.

In two cases where the defendants pleaded not guilty, the South Bangkok Criminal Court found “Tee” Wannawalee, “Big” Kiattichai, and Benja, political activists, guilty under Section 112 for making speeches during the #RatsadonToReachCeiling protest on 24 June 2021. The court ruled that their actions defaming former kings also impacted the current king. Additionally, Wannawalee and Benja were found guilty of violating the Emergency Decree for their roles as organizers of the assembly. They were each sentenced to four years in prison and fined 20,200 baht. Kiattichai was sentenced to three years in prison and fined 200 baht. However, all three received suspended sentences for five years.

In two cases where the defendants pleaded not guilty, the Bangkok South Criminal Court found “Tee” Wannawalee, “Big” Kiattichai, and Benja, political activists, guilty for making speeches during the #RatsadonToReachCeiling protest on 24 June 2021. The court ruled that their actions defaming former kings also impacted the current king. Additionally, Wannawalee and Benja were found guilty of violating the Emergency Decree for their roles as organizers of the assembly. They were each sentenced to four years in prison and fined 20,200 baht. Kiattichai was sentenced to three years in prison and fined 200 baht. However, all three received suspended sentences for five years.

In another case against “Arnon Nampa” a human rights lawyer, he was convicted for making a speech at an assembly on the lawn in front of the Chiang Mai University Art Center in 2020. The Chiang Mai Provincial Court found him guilty of implying that the King had misappropriated public property for personal use and sentenced him to three years in prison. However, considering his cooperation, the sentence was reduced to two years, without suspension

This case marks the seventh Section 112 case against Arnon that has been ruled by the Lower Courts. Altogether, he faces an accumulated prison sentence of 20 years, 19 months, and 20 days across all cases.

There were four cases in which the defendants pleaded not guilty to all charges, including the case against “Fah” Promsorn, an activist from the Ratsadon Muelu group. He was involved in organizing a protest in 2021 calling for the release of Sirichai “New” Nathueng. The Thanyaburi Provincial Court convicted him on multiple charges and sentenced him to five years and eight months in prison. However, the sentence was reduced by half to two years and ten months, with no suspension. He was granted bail pending the appeal.

In the case against “Pim” Thanruethai, a 25-year-old activist from the Mok Luang Rim Nam group, she was allegedly involved in making speeches at an assembly demanding that MPs and Senators respect the people’s votes during the selection of the 30th Prime Minister. The ‘Respect My Vote’ protest took place in front of the Bangkok Art and Culture Centre (BACC) on 14 July 2023. The Bangkok South Criminal Court found her guilty and initially sentenced her to three years in prison. However, the sentence was later reduced by half to one year and six months, with a two-year suspension.

Similarly, in the case against “Donphon” (pseudonym), a 27-year-old resident of Phang-Nga, for commenting on a post about the Royal Arches in the “Royalist Marketplace” group in early 2023, the Krabi Provincial Court sentenced her to three years in prison. However, the sentence was later reduced by half to one year and six months, with a one-year suspension.

In the case against “Jay Juang” (full name withheld), a 54-year-old seller of noodles and crispy pork, for making speeches about the budget allocated for the royal motorcade during an event demanding bail for Bung-Bai Por on 19 July 2022, the Bangkok South Criminal Court sentenced her to four years in prison. However, the sentence was later reduced by half to two years, with a two-year suspension.

Meanwhile, during the past month, there was also a Computer Crimes Act case against “Wijitra” (pseudonym), a 59-year-old resident of Khon Kaen, for posting ten Facebook messages with photos alluding to the monarchy and military coup between 24 October 2014 and 20 June 2015. In this case, the Criminal Court sentenced him to 20 years in prison, later reducing it by half to 10 years without suspension. The Court of Appeal has also denied him bail.

It should be noted that in the case against Wijitra, Section 112 was not applied. At the time he was criminally charged, the government had a policy of refraining from applying Section 112 to cases. Instead, other laws were invoked to charge individuals who made comments about the monarchy. Section 112 was only resumed in use following the student-led protest movement in late 2020 and continues to be applied to this day.

At present (4 April 2025), according to the Thai Lawyers for Human Rights’ documentation, there are at least 47 persons incarcerated in prison as a result of their political expression or due to political reasons. Of this, at least 29 have been denied bail (19 of them have been charged for violating Section 112).

As of today (April 4, 2025), we found that there are at least 47 individuals detained in prison due to political expression or political-related reasons. Of these, at least 29 have been denied bail (19 of them are charged under Section 112).

Regarding the bail attempts for inmates incarcerated while awaiting trial in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, in the past month, our attorneys applied for bail for three individuals: Arnon Nampa, Weeraphap Wongsaman, and Siraphop Phumpuengphut, but none of them were granted bail.

In the case of “Kanun” Sirapob, one of the prisoners detained under Section 112, after the attorney applied for his bail and appealed the decision to deny him bail with the Supreme Court while he was on a hunger strike, the Court still did not allow him to post bail. As a result, he decided to end the hunger strike and began the rehabilitation process on March 16. In total, he had been on hunger strike for 24 days.

Additionally, in the case of “Wijitra,” who was given an unsuspended prison sentence by the Criminal Court, the bail application was referred to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed it. Meanwhile, it has become a trend in various provincial courts that when they impose unsuspended imprisonment sentences, they grant bail themselves without referring the matter to higher courts. As a result, many defendants have been granted bail pending their appeal.

Nine-month imprisonment for Section 116 case related to #ThammasatBearsItNoMore assembly – For contempt of court case against “Arnon,” he was brought to the courtroom to hear the court’s verdict, while the public was banned from attending.

In March, there was a ruling in the “sedition” case under Section 116 of the Criminal Code, related to the #ThammasatBearsItNoMore assembly on 10 August 2020, where the ‘Declaration No. 1 of the United Front of Thammasat and Demonstration’ was read, outlining the 10-point demands for monarchy reform. As a result, nine defendants have been indicted.

Following the trial, the Thanyaburi Provincial Court convicted four defendants—Arnon, Nutchanon, Faison, and Look Mark—under Section 116, ruling that their speeches aimed to create turmoil, dissent, and damage the reputation of the monarchy. However, they were acquitted of charges under the Emergency Decree and the Computer Crime Act. They were sentenced to one year in prison, but the sentence was reduced by one-fourth due to their valuable testimonies, resulting in a nine-month sentence without suspension. On the same day, the court granted them bail pending their appeal.

The court acquitted two defendants, Chanin and “Sathon,” ruling that the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient to prove their involvement in the speeches.

In a case of contempt of court against Arnon Nampa, after he removed his shirt in protest against the court’s refusal to summon key documents in his Section 112 case during the #MobHarryPotter1 assembly, the court did not have him brought into the courtroom. Instead, he was brought to the arraignment room on the 1st floor, where public attendance was prohibited. This led to Arnon protesting the secret verdict hearing.

It was initially known that Arnon was sentenced to an additional six months for contempt of court, but the detailed verdict has not yet been revealed. It is also important to note that there may be concerns about the legality of the court proceedings in this case.

Rulings in Four Protest-Related Cases – Prosecutors Continue to Indict under Emergency Decree Despite Most Cases Being Dismissed by the Courts

Last month, there were rulings in 4 protest-related cases under the Emergency Decree and the Public Assembly Act. Of these, only 1 case was dismissed, while convictions were handed down in the remaining 3. Among the convicted cases was the one involving Chokdee and Weerawit, who took part in the Car Mob protest on 10 July 2021. The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision, imposing a fine of 30,000 baht on the grounds that the defendants had joined a crowded gathering. The court ruled that since their actions violated the law, they could not invoke their constitutional right to peaceful assembly as a defense. The court also emphasized that it was not bound to follow precedents from other cases that had resulted in acquittals or non-prosecution.

Similarly, in the case against Nirand and Wissanuphon, who joined the “Car Mob Surin” protest to oust Prime Minister Prayut on 1 August 2021, the Court of Appeal Region 3 upheld the Lower Court’s verdict, finding them guilty of violating the Emergency Decree and imposing them with a 30,000 baht fine, which was later reduced by one-third to 20,000 baht. The court reasoned that since the defendants had posted announcements for the protest, solicited donations, and delivered speeches, they were deemed co-organizers. Additionally, the large turnout at the protest was considered a public health risk due to the potential spread of COVID-19.

In contrast, the case against eight student and youth activists involved in the #Mob14Oct20 protest—during which potted plants around the Democracy Monument were temporarily relocated before the march proceeded to the Government House—resulted in a full acquittal. The Dusit Kwaeng Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the defendants were event organizers and found no intent on their part to cause any damage to the plants.

Regarding Public Assembly Act cases, a ruling was delivered in one case involving five political activists and monks following their participation in the #RatsadonStopAPEC2022 protest on 18 November 2022. The court found all five guilty on every charge and imposed a fine of 2,500 baht each. Among the defendants was “Payu” Boonsophon, who lost his right eye to rubber bullets used during the police crackdown on the protest.

However, Payu and 18 other individuals injured during the crackdown have filed a lawsuit against the Royal Thai Police and several officers with the Central Administrative Court, accusing them of violating the right to peaceful assembly and employing violence against protestors. The case is still under consideration.

Despite the Emergency Decree initially being invoked during the COVID-19 pandemic, it has since been persistently used to criminalize political assemblies, becoming a government tool to suppress freedom of assembly since 2020. To date, at least 675 cases have been filed under this decree. Of these, at least 70 cases have been dropped by public prosecutors, and even among the prosecuted cases, the courts have shown a tendency to dismiss them—at least 105 cases have already been thrown out.

In March, four new cases related to violations of the Emergency Decree were also prosecuted by the public prosecutor. These include the case concerning the “Candle March to Purge the Evil Spirit” protest at Lat Phrao Intersection on 23 July 2021, in which four Thalufah activists were indicted at the North Bangkok Kwaeng Court.

Another case involved eight activists from the #BecauseThisCountryBelongsToThePeople assembly at Ratchaprasong Intersection on 24 March 2021. The charges were filed with the Pathumwan Kwaeng Court, even though another case arising from the same event, involving “Mind” Patsaravalee, had already been dismissed by another court on grounds of insufficient evidence to prosecute under the Emergency Decree.

Last but not least, the public prosecutor also prosecuted two other cases with the Pathumwan Kwaeng Court on an offence against the Severe Emergency Decree stemming from the #16OctGatheringAtPathumwanIntersection assembly in which five individuals were indicted and in the #Mob17Oct case at Sam Yan Mitra Town in which two were indicted.

Lastly, two more cases were also prosecuted at the Pathumwan Kwaeng Court for serious violations of the Emergency Decree. One pertains to the #16OctGatheringAtPathumwanIntersection, involving five defendants, and the other to the #Mob17Oct protest at Samyan Mitrtown, in which two individuals were indicted.

Supreme Administrative Court revokes outdated student hairstyle regulation, citing unjustified restriction on bodily autonomy and failure to reflect changing social norms

Last month, the Supreme Administrative Court delivered a landmark ruling in the student hairstyle case filed in 2020 by 13 members of the Education for Liberation of Siam (ELS) group. The case sought to revoke the 1975 Ministerial Regulation on student hairstyles, which was issued under an announcement made by the coup regime led by Field Marshal Thanom Kittikachorn.

The Court ruled to rescind the regulation, stating that the 1972 Revolutionary Council Announcement failed to take into account the evolving social context, the developmental stages of children, and the diversity of gender identities. The regulation was deemed to impose an excessive and unjustifiable restriction on individual bodily freedom and therefore conflicted with the Constitution.

ข่าวหรือบทความที่เกี่ยวข้อง

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights

admin

TLHR

TLHR