March 2026: Court acquits Section 112 case against “Piyarat-Nawat”; “Promsorn” denied bail and detained - Kanruethai faces combined prison sentence of 15 years

In March 2026, there were no additional cases arising from public assemblies or political expression compared to the previous month. However, out of a total of 1,346 cases in which citizens have been prosecuted, around 535 cases remain ongoing at various stages of the legal process. There has also been an ongoing trend of influential politicians in different regions increasingly filing defamation lawsuits against citizens or members of the media.

Regarding court judgments in cases related to public assemblies and political expression over the past month, there were at least 12 cases in total: 6 cases under Section 112 and 6 other cases. It was found that the court dismissed charges in three cases: the Section 112 case against Piyarat, the Section 112 case against Nawarat, and the UN62 “People Who Want Elections” protest case involving 18 leaders.

In Piyarat’s Section 112 case, stemming from a speech at the “#LetTheChildrenSpeak” protest, the court dismissed all charges, stating that his speech merely expressed opinions about the structure of state power and the origins of the constitution. In Nawat’s case, related to a speech at the “Shining Light on Democracy” protest, the court also dismissed the charges, stating that Nawarat’s statements did not assert facts or constitute defamation to King Rama X. Finally, in the UN62 case, the court dismissed the Section 116 charges, ruling that the assembly was peaceful as protected by the constitution.

However, there were at least 9 cases in which the court delivered guilty verdicts. In the case of Promsorn, the Court of Appeal Region 1 upheld a conviction under Section 112, sentencing him to 2 years and 10 months in prison and denying bail, resulting in his detention at Thanyaburi Prison. He subsequently undertook a hunger strike to call for amnesty for all prisoners of conscience, which he later ended.

In the case of Kanruethai, a second Section 112 verdict was issued, with the court sentencing her to 2 years and 12 months in prison, to be served consecutively with her first Section 112 sentence. This accumulates into a combined sentence of 10 years and 60 months (approximately 15 years). She remains in detention.

Additionally, in two cases under the Emergency Decree in the past month, the Supreme Court issued guilty verdicts in both: the Pattani car mob case and the Satun car mob case. As a result, the Supreme Court has now delivered judgments in at least 7 car mob cases across various provinces, with only 1 case resulting in a full acquittal.

According to documentation by Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR), from the “Free Youth” assembly on 18 July 2020 through 31 March 2026, at least 1,997 individuals have been prosecuted in connection with public assemblies or the expression of political opinions, across a total of 1,346 cases. Compared to February 2026, this represents zero additional cases.

In total, there have been at least 4,076 prosecutions when repeat cases are counted.

Prosecution statistics in key offences are as follows;

1. Section 112 (lèse-majesté) of the Criminal Code, at least 291 individuals in 321 cases (Of this, at least 169 cases have stemmed from reports to the police made by members of the public.) (six additional individuals in two additional cases in the past month)

2. Section 116 (sedition) of the Criminal Code, at least 157 individuals in 57 cases

3. Violation of the Emergency Decree, at least 1,466 individuals in 678 cases

4. Violation of the Public Assembly Act, at least 202 individuals in 111 cases (three additional individuals in two additional cases in the past month)

5. Violation of the Computer Crime Act, at least 222 individuals in 243 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 1,346 cases, 811 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 2026 and key events;

Editor-in-chief of The Isaan Record sued for defamation by a politician over news coverage of Thai berry-picking labors in Finland

Although there have been no new cases directly arising from public assemblies or political expression, defamation cases continue to occur. It has been found that influential politicians in various regions are filing complaints against citizens who express opinions about their backgrounds or raise questions about their work, as well as against media outlets reporting such issues. Previously, there was a case in which Thammanat Prompao authorized more than 600 lawsuits in Phayao Province.

Last month, Kowit Phothisan, editor of The Isaan Record, revealed that he was sued by Suchat Chomklin, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Natural Resources and Environment, at the Chonburi Provincial Court on charges of “defamation by publication.” The complaint states that Kowit shared a Facebook post by Hathairat Phaholtap, executive editor of The Isaan Record, which discussed an investigation by the National Anti-Corruption Commission into alleged bribery involving a Finnish wild berry company, along with the outlet’s investigative report on workers who were deceived into berry-picking jobs. Kowit added only a caption referring to the role of The Isaan Record.

The plaintiff claims that the content damaged his reputation, subjected him to hatred, caused harm, and brought him shame and severe mental distress. He is therefore seeking damages totaling 1 million baht. The Chonburi Provincial Court has scheduled a preliminary hearing for 27 April 2026.

Previously, Hathairat Phaholtap, executive editor of The Isaan Record, had received a similar summons, but in a case filed with the Criminal Court seeking 50 million baht in damages against her. Later, Suchat stated that he had instructed his legal team to withdraw the case. However, Hathairat said she had not received any official document confirming the withdrawal. Until some time later, Kowit received an additional court summons in connection with the same matter.

March 2026: Court acquits Piyarat and Nawat’s Section 112 case; Phromsorn remains detained after being denied Supreme Court bail – Kanruethai faces combined prison sentence of 15 years across two cases.

Throughout March 2026, courts delivered rulings in at least 12 cases arising from public assemblies and political expression for which the Thai Lawyers for Human Rights provided legal assistance. These included 6 cases under Section 112 of the Criminal Code and 6 cases under other laws. Three cases resulted in acquittals: the Section 112 case of Piyarat, the Section 112 case of Nawarat, and the UN62 “People Who Want Elections” protest case involving 18 leaders.

Of the six Section 112 cases in which verdicts were issued during the month, four were decided by Courts of First Instance and two by the Court of Appeal. The cases are summarized below:

In the case of “Fah” Phromsorn Veerathamjaree, stemming from an activity in front of Khlong Luang Police Station calling for the release of “New” Sirichai Nathuang, who was arrested at night under Section 112 on 14 January 2021, the Court of Appeal Region 1 upheld the previous sentence of 2 years and 10 months in prison without suspension. The charge under the Loudspeaker Act was dismissed.

The Supreme Court has denied bail during the appeal process, and Promsorn remains detained at Thanyaburi Prison. After being detained on 9 March 2026, he undertook a hunger strike calling for amnesty for all prisoners of conscience, which he ended on 19 March 2026.

In the case of Atiruj (surname withheld), who shouted “Wherever you go, you are a burden” at the royal motorcade of King Rama X as it departed the Queen Sirikit National Convention Center on the evening of 15 October 2022, the Court of Appeal upheld the previous sentence of 1 year and 8 months in prison without suspension. On the same day, the South Bangkok Criminal Court granted bail during the Supreme Court appeal stage.

In the case of “Pa Nid,” Jiraporn Bussapakes, a 77-year-old citizen, who gave a speech criticizing the monarchy at the “THE RETURN OF THAMMASAT #ThammasatWillNotTolerate” protest at Thammasat University, Rangsit Campus, on 26 July 2023, the Thanyaburi Provincial Court sentenced her to 3 years in prison. After pleading guilty, her sentence was reduced by half to 1 year and 6 months, suspended for 2 years.

In the case of “Eye,” Kanruethai Klai-on, who posted two Facebook posts containing content related to King Rama X on July 28 and 13 September 2022, the Criminal Court sentenced her to 3 years per count, totaling 6 years. After a reduction by half due to her guilty plea, the sentence was reduced to 2 years and 12 months. This sentence is to be served consecutively with her previous Section 112 conviction, resulting in a combined total sentence of 10 years and 60 months (approximately 15 years).

In the case of “Toto,” Piyarat Chongthep, who delivered a speech on royal powers and the role of the military at the “#LetTheChildrenSpeak” protest at the Ubon Ratchathani City Pillar Shrine on 22 August 2020, he was charged under Section 112, Section 116, and the Computer Crimes Act.

The Ubon Ratchathani Provincial Court dismissed all charges, finding that his speech constituted an expression of opinion about the structure of state power and the origins of the constitution, and did not amount to defamation, insult, or threat toward the monarchy.

In the case of “Amp,” Nawat Liangwattana, who spoke at the “Shining Light on Democracy” protest at Ratchaprasong Intersection on August 14, 2023, the South Bangkok Criminal Court dismissed the charges, ruling that the defendant’s statements did not assert facts or constitute defamation in reference to King Rama X.

However, Nawat has not yet been released from prison, as he remains detained in connection with three other cases.”

Court acquits defendants in the “People Want Elections” UN62 protest case after an almost 8-year long llegal battle; in cases related to violations of the Emergency Decree, the Supreme Court issued two additional rulings and found all defendants guilty

As for other cases related to protests and political expression, courts have issued at least six rulings, with details as follows:

In the case against Chonthicha Khumchanaad, she was charged with violating the severe Emergency Decree for participating in the #Mob20Oct protest near The Mall Bang Khae on 20 October 2020. She pleaded guilty due to concerns over the burden of litigation, and the Bang Bon District Court sentenced her to a fine of 20,000 baht, reasoning that the gathering involved close contact and that some participants did not wear masks, thereby creating a risk of disease transmission.

In the case against “Lee” Sugriffee Lateh, he was charged with violating the Emergency Decree for participating in car mob protests in Pattani on 7 and 14 August 2021, which called for the resignation of Prayut Chan-o-cha and demanded access to mRNA vaccines. The Supreme Court upheld the previous sentence of 4 months in prison and a fine of 40,000 baht, while suspending the prison term for two years, finding that he had played an active role in organizing the events rather than merely participating, resulting in the risk of the spread of disease.

In the case against three student activists from Satun, they were charged under the Emergency Decree for participating in a car mob protest on 10 August 2021, which called for the resignation of Prayut Chan-o-cha and demanded access to quality COVID-19 vaccines. The Supreme Court upheld their conviction, finding that they had helped organize the activity without permission and had failed to comply with public health measures, thereby creating a risk of disease transmission regardless of whether infections actually occurred, and it suspended their sentences for one year.

In the case against 18 activist leaders in the UN62 protest, they were charged primarily with sedition under Section 116 in connection with a march toward Government House, which was stopped by authorities in front of the United Nations on 21–22 May 2018, during which they called for elections to be held as scheduled and for the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) to end its continuation of power.

After more than eight years of legal proceedings, the Criminal Court acquitted them of the Section 116 charge and other main charges, finding that the protest was peaceful and protected under the constitution, that it aimed to call for elections, and that it had been properly notified in accordance with the law. The court also held that minor scuffles between protesters and officers, such as pulling on barricades, were a normal occurrence in protests. However, the court found them guilty of using loudspeakers without permission and imposed a fine of 200 baht on each defendant.

In the case against 13 protesters from the #REDEM group, they were charged in connection with a protest held in front of the Criminal Court on 2 May 2021, which called for the release of activists detained under lèse-majesté laws. They faced charges including contempt of court, unlawful assembly under Sections 215 and 216, and violations of the Emergency Decree. The Court of Appeal later revised the penalties by converting certain fines into administrative fines and adjusting the sentence of one defendant, “Boy” Thatchapong, to a three-year suspended sentence along with an additional criminal fine of 19,999.99 baht.

In the case against Anon (surname withheld), he was charged with illegal possession of a firearm and violating the Emergency Decree in connection with the Din Daeng protest of 12 September 2021. The Court of Appeal upheld the previous sentence of 4 years and 2 months in prison without suspension; however, on the same day, the Criminal Court granted him bail on the condition that he wear an electronic monitoring (EM) bracelet, which has continued for more than four years and six months.

Prosecution ordered under the severe Emergency Decree for #16OctToPathumwanIntersection protest

In March 2026, it was also found that public prosecutors had ordered at least one additional case to be brought to court related to protest activities and political expression.

Chonthicha Khumchanaad was indicted before the Pathumwan District Court on charges of violating the severe Emergency Decree. The case stems from her participation in the #16OctToPathumwanIntersection protest on 16 October 16 2020. This marks the second case in which she has been prosecuted under this charge. Previously, on 6 February 2026, prosecutors had filed the first case related to the #Mob20Oct2020 protest. In that case, the Bang Bon District Court ruled to fine her 20,000 baht.

Pai-Kru Yai still detained despite Supreme Court grating bail in their main Section 112 case; however, in other cases where detention warrants still exist, the court rejected bail requests

In the past month, the Supreme Court granted bail to “Pai”, Jatupat Boonpattararaksa, and “Kru Yai”, Attapon Buapat, in their main Section 112 case, which involved speeches calling for reform of the monarchy during protests held in front of Phukhieo School and Phukhieo Police Station. They had been detained at the Supreme Court stage since 3 September 2025. After bail was granted in the main case, additional bail applications were submitted for other cases in which detention warrants were still in place. Jatupat applied for bail in two additional cases, while Attapon applied for bail in five cases.

At present, Jatupat still has one remaining case in which bail has not been granted. This is the #19SeptRestorePowerToPeople protest case, which is still being considered at the trial court level and has not yet received a final judgment. He had previously been granted bail in this case, but the court later reversed its decision and denied bail.

Attapon still has four cases in which bail has not been granted. Among these, he had previously been granted bail in three cases. Only the case involving a speech at Ratchaprasong intersection received a trial court judgment during his detention, although the case remains under appeal.

In addition, during the same period, bail applications were also filed in other Section 112 cases involving “Fah” Promsorn Veerathamjaree, Arnon Nampa (nine cases), and Section 110 cases involving “Francis” Bunkueanun Paothong and “Tan” Suranat Panprasert. The court rejected all of these bail requests. Furthermore, A bail request for Aekachai Hongkangwan in a Section 110 case was also submitted and is still awaiting a court decision.

Case of ‘Netiwit’ on conscientious objection to military conscription to military conscription postponed pending Constitutional Court ruling – civil society calls on the state to recognize the right to conscientious objection

In the case against “Frank” Netiwit Chotiphatphaisal, he was charged with avoiding military conscription under Section 45 of the Military Service Act B.E. 2497 (1954) after engaging in civil disobedience by refusing compulsory conscription on grounds of conscientious objection.

The Samut Prakan Provincial Court has ordered that the hearing be postponed to await a ruling from the Constitutional Court of Thailand on 20 July 2026. The court has also postponed the judgment hearing to 28 September 2026. This follows a request by the defense for the court to refer a constitutional question on whether the Military Service Act B.E. 2497 is inconsistent with the Constitution. However, the Constitutional Court has not yet issued its ruling.

Meanwhile, a civil society group called the “Right to Refuse Network” has issued a statement supporting the recognition of the right to refuse military conscription on grounds of conscience. The group has called for the eventual abolition of compulsory conscription and has expressed concern that the Constitutional Court’s ruling in Netiwit’s case may affect the rights of future young people who wish to refuse conscription on moral or conscientious grounds, potentially exposing them to legal penalties.

In addition, the network has encouraged public participation in a petition through change.org, calling for the state to recognize the right to conscientious objection to military conscription and urging both the Constitutional Court and the Thai government to formally guarantee this right.

Three Chonburi citizens who called for a recount of Chonburi Constituency 1 election results gave statements as complainants and witnesses, in relation to their counter-complaint against the director on grounds of false reporting

Three citizens of Chonburi province, Manatsanan Kornkasem, Kanokwan Sroyson, and Benjaporn Suksawang traveled to meet with investigators at Mueang Chonburi Police Station to give statements as complainants and witnesses on 5 and 31 March 2026. The three previously took part in calling for a recount of the election results in Constituency 1 of Chonburi and were later reported to the police by the constituency’s election director. The three individuals then filed a counter-complaint accusing the director of making a false report.

In their testimony, all three emphasized that their visit to the badminton hall of Chonburi Municipality was to monitor the situation regarding the request for a vote recount. They stated that this action falls within the rights and duties of citizens to follow and scrutinize the work of the Election Commission, an independent body tasked with exercising its authority honestly, fairly, courageously, and without bias. They also stated that they helped maintain order among the gathered public and coordinated with officials, rather than obstructing officers in any way.

Regarding the Election Commission’s filing of complaints against citizens in both Chonburi and Bangkok, the situation remains to be seen as to whether police will summon individuals to formally acknowledge charges, and how the cases, including the counter-complaints against election officials, will proceed.

Prosecution trend in March 2026 and key events;

Editor-in-chief of The Isaan Record sued for defamation by a politician over news coverage of Thai berry-picking labors in Finland

March 2026: Court acquits Piyarat and Nawat’s Section 112 case; Phromsorn remains detained after being denied Supreme Court bail – Kanruethai faces combined prison sentence of 15 years across two cases.

Court acquits defendants in the “People Want Elections” UN62 protest case after an almost 8-year long llegal battle; in cases related to violations of the Emergency Decree, the Supreme Court issued two additional rulings and found all defendants guilty

Prosecution ordered under the severe Emergency Decree for #16OctToPathumwanIntersection protest

Pai-Kru Yai still detained despite Supreme Court grating bail in their main Section 112 case; however, in other cases where detention warrants still exist, the court rejected bail requests

Case of ‘Netiwit’ on conscientious objection to military conscription to military conscription postponed pending Constitutional Court ruling – civil society calls on the state to recognize the right to conscientious objection

Three Chonburi citizens who called for a recount of Chonburi Constituency 1 election results gave statements as complainants and witnesses, in relation to their counter-complaint against the director on grounds of false reporting

ข่าวหรือบทความที่เกี่ยวข้อง

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights

admin

TLHR

TLHR