May 2025: Attorney General issued a non-indictment order in the case against ‘Paul Chambers’; ‘Netiwit’ indicted for his conscientious objection

In May 2025, three new cases related to political expression emerged. One of these involved a Section 112 (lèse-majesté) charge against a member of the public accused of making a statement regarding King Rama X in March 2023. Another case was brought against former workers of Yarnapund PCL under the Public Assembly Act, following their protest demanding legally mandated severance pay after having their employment terminated by the company.

Additionally, the courts delivered rulings in at least five Section 112 cases last month. In all five cases, the defendants were found guilty. Among them, the Supreme Court delivered a final ruling in the case against “Panithan” (pseudonym), upholding the Court of Appeal’s sentence of one year and six months in prison without suspension. As the ruling is final, Panithan was immediately transferred to Bangkok Remand Prison to begin serving his sentence.

Meanwhile, proceedings against Dr. Paul Chambers have officially concluded following the Attorney General’s decision to issue a non-indictment order, after it became clear that Dr. Chambers was not the person who posted the blurb at the center of the allegations. Nonetheless, the case has had serious repercussions: Dr. Chambers has lost his position at Naresuan University, and his visa to remain in Thailand has been revoked. The appeal against the visa revocation is still pending.

As for other cases stemming from public assemblies and political expression, at least three verdicts were issued last month. Among these was a case against two members of the public charged with violating the Emergency Decree for participating in the Uttaradit Car Mob. In that case, the Supreme Court revised the previous rulings, convicting one defendant and imposing a fine, while affirming the acquittal of the other. This verdict marked the first time that the Supreme Court has delivered a ruling in a case involving a political assembly during the COVID-19 pandemic related to alleged violations of the Emergency Decree

Regarding political charges in May, at least two additional cases progressed through the judicial process. One was the indictment of activist Netiwit Chotiphatphaisal for his conscientious objection to military conscription. His case has now been formally indicted at the Samut Prakan Kwaeng Court. The other was an Emergency Decree case stemming from the #Mob16AugToToppleTyrants protest in 2021 involving four activists. The court granted bail to all four defendants, but required each of them to wear electronic monitoring (EM) devices as a condition of their release.

According to the Thai Lawyers for Human Rights’ documentation, since the “Free Youth” assembly on 18 July 2020 until 30 April 2025, at least 1,974 individuals have been charged for participating in public assemblies or expressing their political opinions in 1,328 cases. Compared with April 2025, there have been three new cases.

Altogether, there have been at least 4.051 legal actions against the individuals although some of them are charged for multiple offences.

Prosecution statistics in key offences;

1. Section 112 (lèse-majesté) of the Criminal Code, at least 280 individuals in 313 cases (Of this, at least 166 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 194 individuals in 107 cases

5. Violation of the Computer Crimes Act, at least 211 individuals in 235 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 1,328 cases, 715 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 May 2025 and key events;

One New Case Each Under Section 112 and the Public Assembly Act

In the past month, there was one new Section112 case as TLHR has received reports about one member of the public being charged for allegedly committing the offense in connection with a post about King Rama X in March 2023. The case originated from a complaint filed by another member of the public.

Additionally, a new case under the Public Assembly Act has been filed against former workers of Yarnapund PCL. The workers, along with members of the P-Move network, reported to Dusit Police Station to hear charges in connection with their protest demanding severance pay after being dismissed from their jobs. Initially, it was understood that there was only one case involving four Yarnapund workers. However, it later emerged that one of their leaders was facing an additional charge of violating the Public Assembly Act for holding an assembly within 50 meters of Government House during ongoing demonstrations in March 2025.

Furthermore, TLHR has documented one additional case under Section 116 (sedition). This stems from developments in the case related to the “When Children Speak, Adults Listen” protest, held in Ubon Ratchathani on 22 August 2020. The Ubon Ratchathani Provincial Court has ordered that the witness examination for defendants Chatchai Kaewkampod and Wisarut Sawatworn, both primarily charged under Section 116, be separated from that of Piyarat “Toto” Chongthep, who faces charges under both Sections 112 and 116. The case had originally been scheduled for joint witness examination, but the separation has resulted in it now being counted as a distinct, and therefore, additional case.

Guilty Verdicts in All Five Section 112 Cases; ‘Panithan’ Sentenced to Immediate Imprisonment as Final Verdict Is Reached

Throughout May 2025, at least five Section 112 cases concluded with guilty verdicts. These included one ruling by the Supreme Court, three by the Courts of Appeal, and one by the Court of First Instance. All defendants were found guilty as charged. The details are as follows:

In the case against political activists “Ammy” Chai-amorn and “Fah” Promson, who were prosecuted for speeches and singing outside the Thanyaburi Provincial Court in 2021, the Court of Appeals Region 1 upheld a prior acquittal for Ammy, while affirming a conviction for Fah. Fah was sentenced to two years in prison without suspension, due to his perceived hostile attitude toward the monarchy, a central institution in Thailand. He was, however, granted bail pending the Supreme Court’s review.

In the case of “Panithan” (pseudonym), a 28-year-old father of an infant from Sa Kaeo province charged for comments made in the “Royalist Marketplace” Facebook group in 2021, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ sentence of one year and six months’ imprisonment without suspension. Given this final verdict, Panithan was immediately transferred to Bangkok Remand Prison to begin serving his sentence.

Regarding “Somphon” (pseudonym), a 32-year-old former companyman accused of throwing paint on portraits of King Rama X in Nonthaburi in 2022, the Court of Appeals Region 1 overturned a previous acquittal on Section 112 charges and sentenced him to four years in prison without suspension. The court found that Somphon had deliberately defamed His Majesty by targeting portraits in multiple locations.

In the case of Patcharapol (surname withheld), a 28-year-old defendant charged for commenting under a post about signing a well-wishing book on the Facebook page of the Public Relations Department, the Court of First Instance initially sentenced him to one year and six months in prison, suspended for three years. However, following the prosecutor’s appeal requesting confiscation of his mobile phone, the Court of Appeals ordered the phone to be confiscated.

Finally, in the case against human rights lawyer “Arnon Nampa,” 40, prosecuted for speeches delivered in front of Bang Khen Police Station in 2020, the Criminal Court sentenced him to two years in prison without suspension. The court ruled that exercising freedom of expression cannot include hostile acts against the monarchy, concluding that Arnon intended to defame and undermine public confidence in the monarchy institution.

This case marked Arnon’s eighth conviction under Section 112. His cumulative sentence across all cases now totals 22 years, 25 months, and 20 days (over 24 years). All cases remain under appeal and have yet to reach final verdict.

Attorney General issues a non-indictment order in Section 112 case against ‘Paul Chambers’ citing lack of evidence linking him to the post; meanwhile, he loses his job at Naresuan University

In May, the Section 112 case against Dr. Paul Chambers came to an end after the Office of the Attorney General issued a non-indictment order. The case concerned an announcement about an academic seminar posted on the Singapore-based ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute’s website. The Attorney General found no evidence proving that Dr. Chambers authored the message or was connected to the person who posted it, deeming the evidence insufficient to proceed with prosecution.

Nevertheless, between the time the arrest warrant was issued and the Attorney General’s decision not to prosecute—a total of 54 days—Dr. Chambers endured several severe consequences. These included one night of detention, being required to wear an electronic monitoring device for 21 days, revocation of his visa, and loss of his position at Naresuan University. Appeals against the visa revocation and his employment termination are currently underway with the Immigration Bureau and the university respectively.

In addition, at least three other cases related to public assemblies and political expression saw verdicts in the past month:

“Thapana” (pseudonym)”, a 20-year-old, was prosecuted for throwing bombs, firecrackers, slingshots, and various objects at the Phaya Thai Police Station building, as well as setting fire to a traffic booth at Phaya Thai intersection after curfew on the night of 1 October 2021, during protests at the Sam Liam Din Daeng area.

The Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases upheld the Trial Court’s verdict sentencing him to five years and six months in prison but converted the sentence into a minimum two-year and maximum three-year term at the Ban Karuna Juvenile Vocational Training Center for Boys, reduced from the original four years. He was also ordered to pay 2,500 baht in civil damages. As of 6 May 2025, he has been detained at Ban Karuna for 404 days.

Last month, in the case against Anurak Kaekhai and Thongsaeng Chaikaew, charged under the Emergency Decree related to the Uttaradit Car Mob on 15 August 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that only Anurak was guilty as charged and fined him 5,000 baht, while upholding the Court of Appeals Region 6’s dismissal of charges against Thongsaeng.

According to TLHR’s documentation, this is the first political assembly case during the COVID-19 period (2020–2022) charged under the Emergency Decree for which a Supreme Court verdict has been issued.

Regarding Dontree Meetha and Poranat Noinongyao, who were charged with violating the Emergency Decree, mischief, assaulting officers, obstructing officials, and illegal assembly of ten or more persons following their participation in the #StandWithMyanmar protest outside the Myanmar Embassy opposing the military coup on 1 February 2021, both defendants pleaded guilty. The Trial Court sentenced each to two years, three months, and 15 days in prison and fined them 45,000 baht each, with the prison sentences suspended for two years.

As for the political prisoner situation, as of 6 June 2025, there are at least 48 individuals detained in prison for political expression or politically related reasons. Of these, at least 27 have been denied bail while fighting their cases. The trend shows an increase in the number of individuals detained after their cases have reached final verdicts.

In May, TLHR lawyers submitted bail applications on behalf of a large group of political prisoners on 14 May, as well as additional bail requests for some other detainees on 8 May. However, all the applications were rejected by the courts, which consistently cited concerns that the defendants might flee and found no reason to overturn previous decisions. As a result, no political prisoners were granted bail last month.

‘Netiwit’ indicted for conscientious objection; Emergency Decree cases from #Mob16AugToToppleTyrants assembly prosecuted with bail granted under electronic monitoring conditions

May saw at least two new indictments. The first involves Netiwit “Frank” Chotiphatphaisal, who was indicted at the Samut Prakan Kwaeng Court on charges of evading military conscription under Section 45 of the Military Service Act B.E. 2497. This followed the incident on 5 April 2024, when Netiwit appeared at the Bang Pu Municipality conscription center and publicly read a statement declaring his conscientious objection to compulsory military service.

This case draws attention as it raises the novel issue in Thai society of conscientious objection as a legal defense. The court has scheduled a pretrial hearing for 9 June 2025.

In another case, four activists—Songphon “Ya Jai” Sonthirak, Nawapol Tonngam, Pimchanok Jirathaiyanon, and Jessadaphon Pohpetch—were indicted at the Criminal Court on charges under the Emergency Decree as well as Sections 215 and 216 of the Penal Code for their participation in the #Mob16AugToToppleTyrants protest at the Victory Monument on 16 August 2021, nearly four years after the incident took place.

After the court accepted the case for trial, the four activists were granted bail, each with a security of 50,000 baht, along with conditions, including the requirement to wear electronic monitoring (EM) devices.

It is worth noting that in August 2021, the Thalufah group organized protests almost daily, prompting police to bring numerous charges against them for violating the Emergency Decree. However, prosecutors have taken varying approaches to these cases. Some prosecutors chose not to pursue charges, reasoning that the protests were not crowded and consisted mainly of speeches expressing demands—acts that anyone should be able to do. These included the #Friday13ToToppleTyrants protest at the Victory Monument and the #Mob18AugToToppleTyrants protest at the Democracy Monument. Still, some cases from that period have continued to be prosecuted.

ข่าวหรือบทความที่เกี่ยวข้อง

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights

admin

TLHR

TLHR