June 2025: Dismissal of three Emergency Decree cases related to 2020-2021 protests, meanwhile court proceeding failing to adhere to ‘principle of public trial’

In June 2025, two new cases related to the right to protest and freedom of expression emerged. One involved a Section 112 charge against an individual from Bangkok, who was detained and taken to Surat Thani to face the allegations. This case was initiated after a royalist group filed a complaint with the police. Another case falls under the Public Assembly Act and involves the Writing Thailand’s Cannabis Future Network

In addition, at least six Section 112 cases received verdicts from the Lower Courts or Higher Courts last month. Of these, only the case against “Narint” was dismissed, while four other defendants were found guilty. Meanwhile, “Jirawat” was denied bail pending trial at the Supreme Court.

Regarding the Emergency Decree cases, three cases in which the defendants pleaded not guilty were dismissed. These included the case against 13 activists and the case involving five individuals hired to drive and operate a sound system vehicle during the #15OctToRatchaprasong assembly in 2020, as well as the Phitsanulok Car Mob case. However, the court convicted the defendants in the #Mob17Oct20 case, who had pleaded guilty to lessen their legal burden.

In prosecutions over the past month, indictments were issued in two Section 112 cases. One involved Jiraporn “Auntie Nid” Busaphaket, who was indicted by the Thanyaburi Provincial Court, and the other involved “Jiradee,” indicted by the Phatthalung Provincial Court. Both cases were initiated following complaints from members of the public.

Also in the past month, prosecutors dropped charges in two Emergency Decree cases: the “Express Nakhon Ping Chiang Mai to Oust Prayut” Car Mob on 18 July 2021, and the “Lanna Anti-Feudal Tour” on 15 August 2021. This brought both cases to a close after nearly four years of legal proceedings.

Regarding political prisoners, following last month’s verdicts, the number has increased by three. As of now (4 July 2025), at least 51 people remain imprisoned for political expression or for politically motivated reasons;

According to the Thai Lawyers for Human Rights’ documentation, since the “Free Youth” assembly on 18 July 2020 until 30 June 2025, at least 1,977 individuals have been charged for participating in public assemblies or expressing their political opinions in 1,330 cases. Compared with May 2025, there have been two additional cases;

Altogether, there have been at least 4,053 legal actions against 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 281 individuals in 314 cases (Of this, at least 167 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 56 cases

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

4. Violation of the Public Assembly Act, at least 196 individuals in 108 cases

5. Violation of the Computer Crimes Act, at least 213 individuals in 237 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 1,330 cases, 720 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 June 2025 and key events;

One New Section 112 Case Filed in the South Following Public Complaint in Surat Thani

In June 2025, two new cases related to political expression were documented: one under Section 112 of the Criminal Code (lèse-majesté) and another under the Public Assembly Act.

The new Section 112 case involves Kittipong Chuwanphen, a 45-year-old Bangkok resident, who was arrested and transferred to Chai Buri Police Station in Surat Thani Province to hear charges under Section 112 and the Computer Crime Act. The case stems from two Facebook posts made in March–April 2025, which allegedly criticized royalists and ultra-royalists and referred to what was described as inappropriate conduct by the King during his stay in Germany.

The complaint was filed by Songchai Nianhom, leader of the People for Monarchy Protection Group. According to our documentation, this is the first known Section 112 case filed in Surat Thani. As of the end of June 2025, at least 281 individuals have been charged under Section 112 in 314 cases since the beginning of the Free Youth protests in late 2020.

In a separate case, two members of the Writing Thailand’s Cannabis Future Network were charged under the Public Assembly Act following their hunger strike in front of Government House in July 2024. The demonstration was organized in opposition to the reclassification of cannabis as a narcotic substance. On 20 May 2025, both were formally charged for organizing an assembly within 50 meters of Government House, in violation of the Public Assembly Act.

On 20 June 2025, the Dusit Kwaeng Court found both individuals guilty and imposed fines of 5,000 baht each.

Section 112 case against ‘Narint’ dismissed, while defendants in four other cases convicted; ‘Jirawat’ denied bail pending Supreme Court trial; Arnon’s cumulative sentence reaches 24 years, 33 months and 20 days

Throughout June 2025, at least six verdicts were delivered in Section 112 cases, including one by the Supreme Court, three by Courts of Appeal, and two by the Court of First Instance. Of these, one case resulted in an acquittal, while the remaining five ended in convictions.

In the case against “Arm” (surname withheld), a 23-year-old restaurant singer from Ko Pha Ngan, who had been charged in connection with a 14-second TikTok video in which he casually spoke to his cat, the Supreme Court revised the sentence to one year and six months in prison, suspended for two years. The ruling is final.

In the case against “Tor” (surname withheld), a 32-year-old former delivery rider who had previously used the pseudonym “Chot Chuang”, the defendant was accused of setting fire to royal portraits. The Court of Appeal Region 1 amended the trial court’s ruling, reducing the sentence from three years to two years in prison, without suspension. He was granted bail pending the Supreme Court’s review.

In the case of Worapol Anansak, a 29-year-old former MP candidate from Chumphon province who was charged for updating his Facebook profile photo in 2021, the Court of Appeal Region 8 upheld the lower court’s ruling, sentencing him to two years in prison, suspended for five years.

In the case of “Boom” Jirawat, a 33-year-old online merchant prosecuted for sharing three posts from the KTUK – Khon Thai UK Facebook page in 2021 without adding any captions, the Court of Appeal upheld the previous sentence of six years in prison without suspension. The Supreme Court later denied his bail request, requiring him to return to prison to await final judgment, after previously being released on bail in late 2024.

In contrast, the Criminal Court acquitted “Narint” (surname withheld), a 35-year-old activist accused of being the administrator of the “Ku Kult” Facebook page. The court ruled that the prosecution had failed to present credible evidence linking the defendant to ownership or control of the page. As the defendant had denied the charges and the evidence did not meet the burden of proof, the court granted him the benefit of the doubt. This was the only Section 112 case dismissed during the past month.

In another case, the Criminal Court found both Arnon Nampa and “Hugo” Jirathita guilty for speeches delivered during the #2DecToLatPhraoIntersection protest in 2020. Arnon was sentenced to two years and eight months in prison without suspension, while Jirathita received a two-year sentence, suspended for three years.

With this most recent conviction, Arnon’s total sentence across nine Section 112 cases, along with related charges, has reached 24 years, 33 months, and 20 days—equivalent to over 26 years and 9 months. He has now been detained at Bangkok Remand Prison for more than one year and nine months. All of his cases remain under appeal, but the courts continue to deny his bail requests, despite repeated applications.

The Criminal Court is expected to deliver a verdict in another Section 112 case against Arnon on 8 July 2025. This case concerns a speech delivered during the #Mob17Nov20 protest in front of the National Assembly, marking the tenth Section 112 case against him to reach a court ruling.

Dismissal of three Emergency Decree cases related to 2020–2021 protests; two convictions rendered in cases where defendants pleaded guilty to reduce legal burden

In June 2025, at least seven verdicts were issued in cases concerning political assemblies and expression. Among these, three cases stemming from protests during 2020–2021 under the Emergency Decree and its serious situation provisions were dismissed by the courts.

In cases of political assemblies prosecuted under the Emergency Decree and the Regulation on the Declaration of a Serious Emergency Situation, the Pathumwan Kwaeng Court acquitted all 13 defendants in one case and five sound system vehicle team members in another, both arising from their participation in the #15OctToRatchaprasong protest in 2020. In the first case, the court ruled that the demonstration was peaceful, unarmed, and fell within the scope of rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. As for the sound system team, the court found that the prosecution had failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove that the defendants had participated in the protest.

In another case, the Supreme Court acquitted Punnameth Onaree, also known as “Games”, for his role in organizing the Phitsanulok car mob on 29 August 2021. The Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the activity posed any risk of spreading disease, as it was held in an open-air, uncrowded environment where all participants wore face masks. The case has now concluded after more than four years of legal proceedings.

As for cases under the Regulation on the Declaration of a Serious Emergency Situation related to the #Mob17Oct20 protest, rulings were handed down in two cases. In the first, Nawat “Amp” Liangwattana and Aomthip Kerdphalanan were charged, and in the second, Sirin “Fleur” Mungcharoen. All defendants pleaded guilty to relieve themselves of prolonged legal burdens. The Court sentenced Nawat to one month of imprisonment, and fined Aomthip and Sirin 2,500 baht each.

In the case against Athit Sakonwari and Namcheaw Niamchan, who were charged with arson for allegedly setting fire to property, including a prisoner transport vehicle, during the #Mob7Aug21 protest at Victory Monument, the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s ruling. Athit was sentenced to two years in prison, and Namcheaw to two years and ten months, both without suspension. However, the court granted them bail pending the Supreme Court’s consideration.

Another case decided last month involved a contempt of court charge against three activists: Weerapap Wongsamarn, Patcharawat Komonprasertkul, and Saran Anurakprakan. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision: Weerapap and Patcharawat were sentenced to 40 days of detention each, and Saran to two months. With this judgment, the case has reached its conclusion. Patcharawat and Saran have since been transferred to the detention facility in Pathum Thani, while Weerapap remains incarcerated at Bang Kwang Central Prison, serving a sentence from a Section 112 case.

As for the political prisoner situation, following the detention of three additional individuals last month, as of 4 July 2025, there are at least 51 people currently detained. Among them, at least 26 have been denied bail while their cases remain pending in court. There is a noticeable trend of increasing final convictions from the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, resulting in more people being sent to prison without access to bail.

Court proceedings affecting the principle of “public trial” with gag orders banning broadcasting and restrictions on audience attendance

During the past month’s hearings at the Criminal Court, several Section 112 cases saw court orders recorded in the docket prohibiting anyone from publicly broadcasting or sharing observations from inside the courtroom without permission. These gag orders were newly issued in three additional cases: the case against “Tum” Jirawat, the #Mob29NovTo11thInfantry protest case from 2020, and the case against Piyarat “Toto” Chongthep. This brings the total number of cases with such gag orders at the Criminal Court to at least seven.

Moreover, the court imposed restrictions on the number of people allowed to attend rulings. For example, during the verdict hearing for the #Mob29NovTo11thInfantry case, the Criminal Court limited attendance to only six persons, barring all others from entering the courtroom. In another case—the #15OctToRatchaprasong protest—the Pathumwan Kwaeng Court completely closed the courtroom doors, preventing relatives and the public outside from listening to the proceedings.

Two more Section 112 cases, reported by members of the public, were filed for prosecution, while prosecution was dropped in two Chiang Mai Car Mob cases.

In the past month, prosecutors filed at least two new Section 112 cases reported by members of the public. One involved Jiraporn “Auntie Nid” Busaphaket, age 76, who was charged for giving a speech criticizing the monarchy during the RETURN OF THAMMASAT assembly at Thammasat University’s Rangsit Campus in 2023. The case was brought before the Thanyaburi Provincial Court.

The other case concerned “Jiradee” (a pseudonym), a 35-year-old Bangkok resident, accused of exchanging comments on Twitter about good and bad people. This case was prosecuted remotely at the far-flung Phatthalung Provincial Court. Both cases were initiated following complaints from royalist activist groups.

Meanwhile, prosecutors decided not to pursue charges in two Emergency Decree cases related to car mob protests in Chiang Mai. These include the “Express Nakhon Ping Chiang Mai To Oust Prayut” car mob on 18 July 2021 and the “Lanna Anti-Feudal Tour” car mob on 15 August 2021, ending the legal process after nearly four years of investigation.

In the first case, involving six defendants, the decision to drop prosecution explained that the assembly was an exercise of constitutional rights, held in an open-air location, with no evidence of Covid-19 infections or an increase in cases among participants.

Regarding the “Lanna Anti-Feudal Tour” Car Mob case, which involved four defendants, the decision to drop prosecution stated that there was no evidence that the accused were organizers of the event. The assembly was politically motivated without intent to spread disease, took place in an open and uncrowded area, and participants wore masks and practiced social distancing.

The prosecutors’ rationale for dismissing both cases highlights that political assembly is a constitutional right, provided there is no intent to facilitate disease transmission and that reasonable precautions are taken to prevent infection. This interpretation aims to protect the public from potential misuse of state power, rather than to grant the state unlimited authority to restrict citizens’ rights. (See Table: Emergency Decree Cases that have been prosecuted, dismissed, or dropped by prosecutors.)

ข่าวหรือบทความที่เกี่ยวข้อง

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights

admin

TLHR

TLHR