In November 2025, one new case related to public assembly and political expression was recorded. The case involves “Phakphum,” a person diagnosed with schizophrenia, who was charged under Section 112 of the Criminal Code and the Flag Act for posting photographs and videos depicting him stepping on and urinating on a royal portrait, as well as urinating on the Thai national flag. Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) was alerted to his case by a political prisoner who encountered Phakphum while he was detained and sought assistance on his behalf. Phakphum was granted bail after spending four days in pretrial detention.
During the past month, verdicts were delivered in at least 14 cases, including five cases under Section 112 and nine other cases. Three cases resulted in acquittals: the Section 112 case against Narin, arising from the alleged placement of a “กูkult” sticker on a portrait of King Rama X; the Emergency Decree case related to the #BecauseThisCountryBelongsToThePeople assembly involving eight activists; and the case against Yuranan concerning the alleged throwing of ping-pong bombs under the Din Daeng Expressway during the #Mob17Oct21 protest (although another defendant in the same case was convicted).
In the remaining 11 cases, the courts handed down convictions. Sentences included imprisonment in Section 112 cases, and fines and imprisonment in cases prosecuted under the Emergency Decree. Defendants convicted under the Public Assembly Act were also sentenced to imprisonment. In addition, in one case, the court ordered the suspension of the publication of a song on YouTube.
Furthermore, public prosecutors brought at least six new indictments. These include a Section 112 case against “Apirak” for posting and sharing four messages on Facebook; cases against “Jay Juang” and “Jay Thiam” for displaying banners in front of their noodle shop; a case against Thongpol “Yajai” Sonthirak for a symbolic act of raising three fingers during a royal degree conferral ceremony at Khon Kaen University; a Section 116 case against five activists and students for organizing a mock referendum; and a Public Assembly Act case against four former workers of Yarnapund PLC for holding a protest near Government House.
Meanwhile, Australian journalist Murray Hunter was charged with defamation by publication for allegedly authoring four articles on the human rights situation in Malaysia. The case was filed in a Thai court by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC), a Malaysian government agency.
Regarding court proceedings, the Criminal Court issued an additional gag order during the past month, prohibiting the reporting of events inside the courtroom in the case against Sirawith Seritiwat, also known as “Ja New.” At the same time, witness examinations in Section 112 cases continue to encounter obstacles, as the Criminal Court has again dismissed requests to summon both documentary and oral evidence in cases related to speeches delivered during the #25NovGoToSCB protest. These requests were submitted to verify the factual accuracy of the defendants’ statements and to support the argument that speaking the truth should not constitute a criminal offense.
According to documentation by Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR), from the “Free Youth” assembly on 18 July 2020 through 30 November 2025, at least 1,987 individuals have been prosecuted in connection with public assemblies or the expression of political opinions, across a total of 1,339 cases. Compared to October 2025, this represents an increase of one additional case.
Altogether, there have been at least 4,065 legal actions against the individuals although some of them are charged for multiple offences.
Prosecution statistics in key offences are as follows;
1. Section 112 (lèse-majesté) of the Criminal Code, at least 285 individuals in 318 cases (Of this, at least 169 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 677 cases
4. Violation of the Public Assembly Act, at least 199 individuals in 109 cases
5. Violation of the Computer Crimes Act, at least 218 individuals in 242 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 1,339 cases, 769 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 November 2025 and key events;
Schizophrenic patient ‘Phakphum’ found to have been detained in Section 112 case
In November, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) documented the case of “Phakphum” (pseudonym), a person diagnosed with schizophrenia, who was detained in connection with charges under Section 112 of the Criminal Code and the Flag Act. The charges arose from photographs and videos he posted depicting him stepping on and urinating on a royal portrait, as well as urinating on the Thai national flag.
According to TLHR’s inquiry, the case originated from a complaint filed by a private individual, Nawa Kuntakarn. Investigating officers at Chokchai Police Station “invited” Phakphum for questioning without issuing either an arrest warrant or a summons. Upon observing signs of mental illness, the inquiry officer referred him to Somdej Chao Phraya Hospital for psychiatric evaluation. Medical professionals diagnosed him with a mental disorder, including schizophrenia, while concluding that he was nevertheless competent to stand trial. Following this assessment, the inquiry officer proceeded to file charges and petitioned the Criminal Court for his pretrial detention.
TLHR was notified of the case only after a political prisoner alerted the organization. After conducting further inquiries, TLHR provided legal assistance to Phakphum, who was granted bail on 21 November 2025, after four days in detention.
As a result of this case, the number of individuals charged under Section 112 increased by one during the past month, bringing the cumulative total to 285 individuals across 318 cases.
In addition, there were reports during the past month of an arrest in a Section 112 case pursuant to an outstanding warrant. However, TLHR’s review found that the underlying allegations related primarily to fraud. Accordingly, this case was not included in TLHR’s Section 112 case statistics.
Separately, in November, individuals in several areas were summoned by Muang Phayao Police Station to acknowledge charges of “defamation by publication” under Section 328 of the Criminal Code. The complaints were initiated by Captain Thammanat Prompao, who authorized Arthit Manassa to file the complaints against individuals who had expressed their opinions on Facebook. These cases were linked to remarks made by Rangsiman Rome, a Member of Parliament from the People’s Party, during a policy debate, in which he addressed scam networks and money-laundering activities allegedly connected to prominent politicians.
The use of defamation laws in this manner by those in positions of power, both to suppress public expression and by filing cases in distant jurisdictions where complainants hold influence, creates significant burdens on those facing litigation and constitutes a form of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP). Such practices warrant continued and close monitoring.
Rulings in Five Section 112 Cases: Three Supreme Court Decisions Result in Continued Imprisonment for “Udom” and “Kong” Ukrit, While Acquittal of “Narin” Is Upheld
Throughout November 2025, courts delivered rulings in at least 14 cases arising from public assembly and political expression. These included five cases under Section 112 of the Criminal Code and nine cases under other laws.
Three cases resulted in acquittals: the Section 112 case against Narin, stemming from the alleged placement of a “กูkult” sticker on a portrait of King Rama X during the #19SeptToReclaimPowerOfRatsadon assembly; the Emergency Decree case related to the #BecauseThisCountryBelongsToThePeople protest involving eight activists; and the case against Yuranan concerning the alleged throwing of ping pong bombs beneath the Din Daeng Expressway during the #Mob17Oct21 protest (although another defendant, Pornpot, was convicted).
In the remaining 11 cases, courts handed down convictions. Sentences included imprisonment in Section 112 cases, fines and imprisonment in Emergency Decree cases, and imprisonment for violations of the Public Assembly Act. In one case, the court also ordered the suspension of the publication of a song on YouTube.
Of the five Section 112 cases in which verdicts were issued during the month, one was decided by a court of first instance, one by the Court of Appeal, and three by the Supreme Court. These cases are summarized below.
In the case against “Udom,” arising from seven Facebook posts made in October 2020, the Supreme Court revised the sentence to 10 years’ imprisonment without suspension, increasing the penalty from the four-year prison sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal Region 9. The Supreme Court expanded the conviction to include three posts concerning former monarchs, finding them to constitute offences under Section 112. This marked a departure from the rulings of both the trial court and the Court of Appeal, which had acquitted Udom on those counts on the grounds that Section 112 does not apply to former kings.
Udom has been detained at Narathiwat Provincial Prison since 30 August 2023, following the verdict of the Court of Appeal Region 9, and was repeatedly denied bail. At the time of the Supreme Court’s ruling, he had already spent 827 days in detention, or approximately two years and three months. With the Supreme Court judgment, his case has reached finality, and he remains imprisoned to serve the remainder of his sentence.
In the case against Thatchapong “Boy” Kaedam, Nawat “Amp” Liengwattana, and Chattrarapi Ajsomboon, arising from the reading of a statement during the #Mob14Nov21 protest in front of the German Embassy, the South Bangkok Criminal Court sentenced each defendant to two years’ imprisonment under Section 112. The court found that the statement was critical of and insulting to the monarchy. However, the defendants were acquitted of the Section 116 charge, as the court found no evidence of violence or incitement.
The court suspended Chattrarapi’s sentence for two years but declined to suspend the sentences of Thatchapong and Nawat. As a result, Thatchapong was detained for four days while awaiting the Court of Appeal’s decision on his bail application, after which he was released on bail.
In the case against “Petch” Thanakorn and “Beam” Nattakorn, relating to their participation in the #WearingCropTopAndStrollingSiamParagon activity on 20 December 2020, the Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases upheld the trial court’s sentence of one year and six months’ imprisonment. However, it modified the lower court’s order requiring attendance at a youth training and education center, replacing it with a three-year suspended sentence.
In the case against Narin (surname withheld), concerning the alleged placement of a “กูkult” sticker on a portrait of King Rama X in front of the Supreme Court during the #19SeptToReclaimPowerOfRatsadon assembly in 2020, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s acquittal, thereby bringing the case to a final conclusion.
Finally, in the case against Aukit “Gong” Santiprasitkul, arising from five Facebook posts on the “John New World” page, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s sentence of five years and thirty months’ imprisonment. Ukrit has been incarcerated since 13 February 2024 following the appellate ruling and has consistently been denied bail. With the Supreme Court’s rulings in this case and another related case, all proceedings against him have now reached final judgment.
Verdicts in Section 112 cases
November 2025
| Court | Case | Verdict |
| Supreme Court | “Udom”, 37, from PrachinburiPosting seven Facebook messages in personal account during October 2020 | Supreme Court revising sentence from four to ten years in prison |
| South Bangkok Criminal Court | Thatchapong Kaedam and two othersReading statements during #Mob14Nov21 assembly at German Embassy | Sentenced to two years in prison, acquitted on Section 116Bailed out |
| Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases | “Petch” Thanakorn and “Beam” Nattakorn, youth activistsParticipating in #WearingCropTopAndStrollingSiamParagon assembly on 20 December 2020 | Verdict upheld, sentenced to one year and six months, albeit requirement to attend training replaced by three-year-suspension |
| Supreme Court | “Narin” for posting “กูkult” sticker on King Rama IX’s portrait during #19SeptToReclaimPowerOfRatsadon assembly in 2020 | Acquitted |
| Supreme Court | Aukrit “Gong” Santiprasitkul, 27Posting five messages in “John New World’ Facebook Page | Verdict upheld, sentenced to 5 years and 30 months in prison |
In addition, in the case against “Pakpinya” (surname withheld), who was accused of sharing six posts related to the monarchy during 2020–2021, five of which included accompanying captions, the Supreme Court issued its final ruling in October. According to our inquiry, the Supreme Court revised her sentence to nine years’ imprisonment, increasing it from the six-year sentence previously imposed by the Court of Appeal Region 9. At present, however, Pakpinya has become a political exile as a result of the Section 112 prosecution.
.
The Supreme Court upheld the ban on the song ‘Reform’ by R.A.D. In a related case involving riding a motorcycle while holding an anti-Section-112 flag near the Grand Palace, the Court sentenced the defendant to two months in prison, and the defendant was remanded for one night pending bail.
As for the nine cases concerning public assembly and political expression that the Court ruled on, the details are as follows:
The Emergency Decree case against eight activists—Thatchaphong Kaedam, Nutthathida Meewangpla, Yingcheep Atchanont, Benja Apan, Chumaporn Taengkliang, Thanaporn Wichan, Atthaphon Buaphat, and Shinawatra Chankrachang—related to the #BecauseThisCountryBelongsToThePeople assembly on 24 March 2021 at Ratchaprasong Intersection, the Pathumwan Kwaeng Court acquitted all eight defendants.
Meanwhile, in the case against Supreeya “San” Jaikaew for violating the Emergency Decree as an MC during the #ChiangRaiPeopleHateFoolsAndDon’tWantAnyoneWhoIsUnfaithful rally at the Chiang Rai Clock Tower on 25 July 2020, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal Region 5’s verdict imposing a 4,000-baht fine, bringing the case to a close after more than five years of legal proceedings.
In the Emergency Decree case against four activists—Jatupat ‘Pai’ Boonpattararaksa, Nawapol “Dino” Tonngam, Panadda “Tong” Sirimasakul, and Natthapong “Kaew Sai” Phukaew—for participating in the “Gathering in a candle procession to drive away evil spirits and misfortunes” at Lat Prao Intersection on 23 July 2021, the Bangkok North Municipal Court sentenced Jatupat to 24 days in prison without suspension, and the other three to 18 days in prison with suspension, along with a 7,500-baht fine each.
In the Public Assembly Act case against five activists—“Sainam” Naphasin, “Oi” Sittichai, “Gap” Jiraphas, “Bung-urn,” and “Dew” Somchai Khamna—who participated in a public assembly within 150 meters of the Grand Palace, riding motorcycles while holding flags to demand the repeal of Section 112 and calling for the release of detained activists on 9 May 2023 near Wat Phra Kaew and Ratchadamnoen Road, the Dusit Kwaeng Court sentenced all five to two months in prison without suspension, causing them to be remanded for one night at Bangkok Remand Prison while awaiting the Court of Appeal’s decision on bail.
In the case against Narin (last name withheld) for contempt of court related to wearing a Santa Claus outfit and holding a banner with the hashtag #HisMajestyTheKingGraciously while supporting “Tawan and Bung” on 25 December 2023, the Court of Appeal upheld the previous verdict, sentencing him to ten days in prison and a 200-baht fine, with a one-year suspension of the prison sentence.
In the case against Prawit (last name withheld) for allegedly setting fire to a traffic booth under the Din Daeng Expressway following the #Mob10Aug21 assembly, the Court of Appeal revised his sentence from 6 years and 4 months to 6 years in prison without suspension. Prawit had been detained since the Court of First Instance’s ruling and was denied bail, being held for over two years before the Court of Appeal issued its ruling
In the case against Phonpot Changkrajang and Yuranan (last name withheld) for allegedly hurling Ping Pong bombs under the Din Daeng Expressway during the #Mob17Oct21 assembly, the Court of Appeal upheld the previous verdict acquitting Yuranan, while convicting Phonpot, revising his sentence from 4 years and 6 months to 2 years and 3 months in prison without suspension. He was allowed to post bail pending the Supreme Court verdict.
In the case against “Ta” Khathathon (last name withheld) for “unauthorized lighting and launching of a flare” under NCPO Order No. 27/2559 during the activity “Opening Parliament, Searching for Section 112 Amnesty” at the National Assembly on 11 December 2024, Khathathon pled guilty during the interrogation. The Dusit Kwaeng Court fined him 5,000 baht.
As for the “Reform” song by Rap Against Dictatorship (R.A.D.), which the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society requested to be banned on YouTube, the band challenged the order all the way to the Supreme Court. Last month, the Supreme Court upheld the ban as previously decided by the Court of Appeal. As a result, internet users in Thailand are unable to access the video domestically, although it remains available globally
.
Five new indictments: Case concerning banners in front of noodles stall of “Jay Juang” and “Jay Thiam” and flashing three fingers case against “Yajai”, for allegedly violating Section 112
In November 2025, at least six new political cases were prosecuted, including three Section 112 cases, one Section 116 case, and one Public Assembly Act case.
As for the three Section 112 cases prosecuted last month, these include the case against “Apirak” (pseudonym), who was indicted with the Criminal Court for posting and sharing four Facebook posts during 8–10 August 2025. In the same month, he was arrested without an attorney or trusted person present during the questioning and was remanded in custody for more than 19 days, until TLHR intervened to provide legal assistance.
The second case is against “Jay Juang” and “Jay Thiam” (first name and last name withheld), two noodle vendors indicted with the Phrakhanong Criminal Court for posting two banners around their stall on 18 January 2023. The banners called for the repeal of Section 112, questioned the national budget, and demanded the release of political prisoners. The indictment states that the banners were visible to passersby and could be seen as impairing the reputation of His Majesty, exposing the defendants to contempt and hatred.
The third case is against Thongpol “Yajai” Sonthirak, who was indicted with the Khon Kaen Provincial Court for making a symbolic gesture by flashing three fingers in front of HRH Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn during a degree conferral ceremony at Khon Kaen University on 20 December 2022. He also gave interviews to the “Thalu Mor Khor” Facebook Page and “The Isaan Record,” and was indicted on three counts.
In addition, a “sedition” case under Section 116 and a “criminal association” case under Section 210 were filed against five activists and students for conducting a mock referendum during a public discussion on “The Right to Self-Determination and Peace in Patani” at Prince of Songkla University, Pattani Campus, on 7 June 2023. They were indicted with the Pattani Provincial Court on two counts, and one defendant was also charged under the Computer Crimes Act for livestreaming the event.
As for the Public Assembly Act cases, four workers from Yarnapund PLC were indicted with the Dusit Kwaeng Court for holding an assembly near Government House from 11 March to 1 April 2025. The assembly was prompted by the company laying off over 800 workers without providing severance pay or compensation in lieu of advance notice
.
Australian journalist Murray Hunter indicted on defamation by publication for reporting on the human rights situation in Malaysia
In the past month, another significant legal development involved the case against Murray Hunter, an Australian journalist, who was charged with defamation by publication for posting four articles on Substack reporting on the human rights situation in Malaysia between 13 and 29 April 2024. The complaint was filed with Thai authorities by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC), a Malaysian government agency.
The public prosecutor decided to indict the case before the Bangkok South Criminal Court on 21 October 2025. This appears to be the first instance in which a foreign government agency has initiated a defamation case against an individual residing in Thailand. The case reflects the characteristics of a transnational SLAPP, as the legal action was initiated by a state agency of one country to pursue legal proceedings against a dissident residing in another country.
.
.
Criminal Court refused four requests to summon evidence in the SCB case, despite defense motions to authenticate the defendants’ statements
In the past month, the Criminal Court conducted a witness examination in a Section 112 case against seven political activists arising from speeches delivered during the #25NovGoToSCB assembly in front of Siam Commercial Bank’s headquarters in 2020.
In this case, defense lawyers filed motions requesting the Court to summon 15 witnesses and 17 items of documentary evidence for the witness examination. The requested evidence included, among others, reports on budget expenditures for overseas innovation trade show projects under the Sirivannavari brand; lists of the top ten major shareholders of Siam Commercial Bank Public Company Limited between 2017 and 2021; lists of the top ten major shareholders of Siam Cement Public Company Limited; lists and details of Crown Property, personal royal assets, and Privy Purse assets between 2017 and 2021; and the travel itinerary of King Rama X to and from Germany.
Defense lawyers submitted such motions on four occasions: first on 14 October 2025, prior to the commencement of the prosecution’s witness examination; second on 13 November 2025, during the prosecution witness examination hearing; third on 26 November 2025; and fourth on 28 November 2025. On each occasion, the Criminal Court dismissed the requests, citing that the proposed evidence was not relevant to the facts of the case, despite the defense’s repeated explanations of the relevance of both the documentary and oral evidence. The defense also requested that the Court hold a hearing on the necessity of issuing the summonses, but this request was likewise rejected.
The attorneys have made at least four attempts to file the request motions with the Court including the first time on 14 October 2025 prior to the commencement of prosecution witness examination, the second time on 13 November 2025 during the prosecution witness examination hearing, the third time on 26 November 2025 and the fourth time on 28 November 2025, and has found the Criminal Court has dismissed the request every single time citing that it was not relevant to the facts in this case despite the defense’s attempt to explain in each request how relevant the documentary and oral evidence is. They even asked to have a hearing conducted on the necessity of such court summons.
Difficulties in securing court summonses for documentary and oral evidence related to statements concerning the status and role of the monarchy in Section 112 cases remain a significant concern, as courts have continued to refuse such requests in multiple cases.
.
.
11th case: Criminal Court issues a gag order prohibiting reporting on courtroom proceedings in the case against Sirawith Seritiwat, aka “Ja New”
In the past month, the Criminal Court recorded a procedural order in the case against Sirawith “Ja New” Seritiwat, who has been indicted on a charge of defamation by publication arising from a speech delivered during a campaign to collect signatures seeking the removal of Election Commissioners during the 2019 general election. The order stated that “no person is permitted to broadcast or disseminate any events occurring in the courtroom or within the Criminal Court to the public without permission. Otherwise, the Court will take action in accordance with applicable regulations and laws to maintain order within the court premises.” The order was issued during the witness examination hearings held on 25–26 November 2025.
To date, the Criminal Court has issued such orders in at least 11 cases related to political expression that have drawn public attention, particularly cases involving Section 112, prohibiting the dissemination of information about events occurring in the courtroom.
.
ข่าวหรือบทความที่เกี่ยวข้อง
Silent Harassment: Monitoring and Intimidation of Citizens during the Coronation Month
Although the coronation ceremony of King Rama X from 4 to 6 May 2019 and the royal celebration from 22 to 28 May 2019 took place “peacefully”, violations of personal freedom through constant monitoring and intimidation by state authorities occurred in secret throughout the course of the events. They gained little media coverage. In the […]
TLHR
12/06/2562
As if the NCPO Never Left: Six Years After the Coup and the Persistence of Human Rights Violations
As the new Cabinet was sworn in before His Majesty the King on 16 July 2019, the junta-led National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) stepped down from power after having ruled the country for five years, one month, and 23 days. Nevertheless, the network of powerful political actors established under the NCPO regime has […]
admin62
22/05/2563
The Court of Appeal denied a request to release 4 protest leaders, citing their speeches have tarnished the reputation of the monarchy, despite the lack of final verdict
On 15 February 2021 at 16.30 approximate, The Criminal Court read the order of the Court of Appeal to deny bail requests of 4 protest leaders of the “Ratsadon Group”, which is in accordance to the Court of First Instance. After 11 February 2021, the lawyer filed an appeal against the Court’s order denying bail […]
admin62
19/02/2564
Drop charges against people and guarantee their rights to access justice
During the first outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, protestors continued to stage political rallies demanding the Prime Minister’s resignation, a new constitution, and monarchical reforms in defiance of the nationwide state of emergency. In response, state authorities have pursued legal actions against a number of people who exercised their freedom of assembly. According […]