June 2026: 2 SLAPP cases dismissed while Senate deliberating Amnesty Bill ‘excluding Section 112 cases in all circumstances including youth’

June 2026 saw a new case filed concerning freedom of expression compared to May. A resident in Sa Kaeo province has been summoned regarding his act of “conscientious objection” bringing the number of individuals being charged to at least 1,347 cases while at least 589 cases are still pending in various stages.

Meanwhile judicial decisions have been made in at least 8 cases stemming from public assembly and political expression throughout June 2026 which can be divided into main categories including;

Section 112 cases: The Court of First Instance delivered verdicts in two lèse-majesté cases involving “Fanta” and “Puy,” convicting both individuals and sentencing each to one year and six months’ imprisonment. Both were subsequently granted bail pending appeal. In addition, the court lifted the requirement for “Fanta” to wear an electronic monitoring (EM) device as a condition of his release.

Other cases concerning public assembly: In four cases, the courts delivered either convictions or acquittals. In one case, involving Sakda and Karnpirom, who were allegedly setting fire and damaging property in connection with a public assembly on 11 August 2021, the Court of Appeal upheld the convictions and affirmed the sentence of two years’ imprisonment for each individual. They were subsequently granted bail pending the Supreme Court’s consideration of the case. In another case, involving Paithoon, who was charged with unlawful possession of explosives, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s judgment and affirmed his sentence of eight years’ imprisonment without suspension.

There were also cases in which all or some defendants were acquitted. In the case against “Mike” Panupong and “Rung” Panusaya arising from the #Mob13Feb21 assembly, the Court of Appeal overturned Panusaya’s conviction for causing damage to property. However, it upheld Panupong’s conviction and affirmed his sentence of four months’ imprisonment and a fine of 20,000 baht, with the term of imprisonment suspended for one year.

Meanwhile, in the case involving three activists from Chiang Mai who were charged with insulting the Constitutional Court in connection with their “Rama Tulakarn” activity in 2022, the court convicted only Siwanchalee, sentencing him to eight months’ imprisonment without suspension, while granting him bail pending appeal. The remaining two defendants were acquitted.

SLAPP cases on “defamation” charges: Among the cases assisted by the Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, the Courts dismissed two such cases during the pretrial hearings, including the cases against Kowit Phothisan and “Maywadee,” citing that criticisms of holders of political office served public interest and the acts had been committed in good faith.

Situation of bail application: Five political prisoners have submitted Applications have been made to bail out five political prisoners, including Atthaphon “Kru Yai” Buaphat, Jatupat ‘Pai’ Boonpattararaksa, Nawat “Amp” Liangwattana, Boonkueanun “Francis” Paothong, and Promsorn “Fah” Veerathamjaree. The Court has, however, dismissed all applications, resulting in no pretrial prisoners have been granted bail, continuing the pattern observed in previous months.

There was one new lèse-majesté prosecution against Makarapong “Ter” Sraprasert, stemming from a speech he made during the “Stand, Stop, Detention for 112 minutes” in 2021. He was subsequently indicted before the Nakhon Ratchasima Provincial Court.

Movement to advocate for Political Amnesty Bill: The Senate deliberated the Draft Act on Promoting a Peaceful Society during its second and third readings. While casting votes in agreement with the Draft Act, they proposed to add a provision “to not give amnesty to Section 112 cases in all circumstances including youth” making the vast majority of political prisoners not benefit from the law.

In addition, last month, a seminar on “Geography of (In)Justice: The Problem of Remote Prosecutions: Examining the Law, the Impacts, and Proposals for Reform” led by Assoc. Prof. Sawatree Suksri, the report of which can be viewed on the Thai Lawyers for Human Rights’ website.

According to the Thai Lawyers for Human Rights’ documentation, since the “Free Youth” assembly on 18 July 2020 until 30 June 2026, at least 1,998 individuals have been charged for participating in public assemblies or expressing their political opinions in 1,347 cases.

Compared with May 2026, one new case has been initiated following a hiatus during March – April 2026 (counting only cases in which the suspects have been charged and not counting defamation cases filed by politicians against members of the public in various areas.)

Altogether, there have been at least 4.077 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 291 individuals in 321 cases (Of this, at least 171 cases have stemmed from reports to the police made by members of the public.)

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

5. Violation of the Computer Crimes 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 the 1,347 cases, 828 have been concluded, although some were not concluded in their entirety (as appeals remain pending for certain defendants while proceedings have become final for others). In other words, there are at least 589 cases pending in various stages and court orders have been gradually issued each month.

The trend of prosecution in June 2026 and key events:

Resident in Sa Kaeo province summoned to answer to ‘conscientious objection’ related charge

Isariya Chaimontri, 26 years, from Sra Kaew province, has been summoned by the Wang Nam Yen Police Station as a suspect in an offence of “avoiding or resisting appearing for the selection committee for selection to serve in active duty” as a result of his wearing a T-shirt featuring the word “Dismantling Military Conscription” and “Stop Violating People’s Rights” to show his stance against military conscription. His conscientious objection was acted out at the military conscription selection unit, Wang Nam Yen District, Sa Kaeo Province on 11 April 2026.

According to the summons, he was scheduled to meet the inquiry official on 11 June 2026, but a coordination has been made with the police to reschedule the meeting to answer to the charges to 17 July 2026. Isariya is the second individual being charged for committing conscientious objection following Netiwit Chotiphatphaisal.

“Fanta-Puy” sentenced to 1 year and 6 months without suspension in Section 112 case albeit allowed to post bail pending the appeal – Fanta no longer required to wear EM

Throughout June 2026, courts delivered verdicts in at least eight cases concerning public assemblies and political expression. These included two lèse-majesté cases, four other cases related to public assemblies and political expression, and two SLAPP defamation cases filed by politicians.

As to the verdicts in Section 112 cases, the Court of First Instance decided in 2 cases including;

“Fanta” (pseudonym), a 30-year-old ethnic Akha from Chiang Mai, was prosecuted for posting photographs of protest banners and accompanying messages on Facebook with hashtags on 18 July 2021. The Court found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. As he pleaded guilty, the sentence was reduced by half to one year and six months’ imprisonment without suspension. On the same day, the Criminal Court granted him bail pending appeal and ordered the removal of his Electronic Monitoring (EM) device.

In the case against “Puy” (pseudonym), a 43-year-old resident from Bangkok who has allegedly posted comments in a post in the Royalist Marketplace – Talad Luang Facebook Group on 19 November 2021, the Criminal Court convicted and sentenced him to 3 years in prison. Given his guilty plea, the sentence was reduced by a half to 1 year and 6 months without suspension. On the same day, he was granted bail by the Criminal Court

From the number of Section 112 cases that have been decided since November 2020 until June 2026, the Courts have gradually issued orders in at least 220 cases. Among them, only 24 cases have been dismissed.

Summary of verdicts in Section 112 cases in June 2026

Court	Case	Verdict
Section 112 cases
Criminal Court	“Fanta”, 30-year-old ethnic Akha from Chiang Mai, charged for allegedly posting pictures of banners from protest with captions in Facebook	Sentenced to 1 year and 6 months in prison, without suspension.Bail granted, having EM device removed
Criminal Court	“Puy”, 43-year-old resident from Bangkok, charged for allegedlyposting comments in Royalist Marketplace – Talad Luang Facebook Group	Sentenced to 1 year and 6 months in prison, without suspension.Bail granted.
Other cases concerning political expression and scrutinizing of state authority
Court of Appeal	Sakda and Karnpirom, charged for allegedly setting fire and damaging property at Din Daeng Intersection	Sentenced to 2 years in prison, without suspension.Bail granted.
Supreme Court	Paithoon “Toon,” charged for allegedly making and having explosives in possession.	Sentenced to 8 years in prison, without suspension.Case has been concluded, and Paithoon remains in detention.
Court of Appeal	Panupong “Mike” and Panusaya “Rung,” charged with violating Emergency Decree and causing damage to property, stemming from#CountingFromOnetoMillionReturningPowerToPeople assembly at Democracy Monument.	Panusaya: The Court of Appeal overturned the verdict of the Court of First Instance and acquitted on causing damage to property. Panupong: Sentenced to four months’ imprisonment, suspended for one year, and a fine of 20,000 baht, and ordered to pay 50,000 baht in damages to the BMA.
Chiang Mai Provincial Court	Siwanchalee “Ramil,” Khunphat and Phungboon, charged with contempt of Court, stemming from “Rama Tulakarn” activity to oppose the Constitutional Court’s verdict.	Siwanchalee: Sentenced to 8 months, bail granted. Khunphat and Phungboon: Acquitted
Chonburi Provincial Court	Kowit, Editor of The Isaan Record, charged with defamation by publication following a complaint filed by Suchart Chomklin over social media posts suggesting his involvement in a human trafficking case in Finland.	Acquitted
Roi Et Provincial Court	“Maywadee,” Burapha University student, charged with defamation by publication following a complaint filed by Ratchanee Phonsue for sharing posts concerning legal cases against the Phonsue family	Acquitted

‘Ramil’ sentenced to 8 months for insulting Constitutional Court, while bomb possession case against ‘Paithoon’ upheld by Supreme Court, causing him to serve 8 years in jail

In other cases concerning public assembly and political expression, courts delivered verdicts in at least 4 cases as follows:

In the case against Sakda and Karnpirom, who were accused of setting fire on tow truck of the Royal Thai Police under the Din Daeng Expressway following the assembly on 11 August 2021, the Court of Appeal upheld the verdict of the Court of First Instance, sentencing each of them to two years’ imprisonment without suspension. The Court cited that they had acted with intent, had completed the commission of the offence, and that the circumstances of the case were serious. On the same day, they were granted bail pending their Supreme Court’s trial.

Another case concerning “Toon” Paithoon, who was accused of being complicit in making and having explosive in possession and arrested during the house search following the Thalu Gaz assembly on 1 October 2021. Initially, two defendants, including Paithoon and Suksan, were charged in this case.

The Court of Appeal Region 1 had previously acquitted Suksan, as no appeal was filed with the Supreme Court. As a result, the case against Suksan concluded at the at the appellate level. Paithoon, however, appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal Region 1 entencing him to eight years’ imprisonment without suspension, thereby bringing the proceedings against him to be final.

The Court of Appeal also delivered a verdict in the case against Panupong “Mike” Jadnok and Panusaya ‘Rung’ Sittijirawattanakul, who were charged with violating the Emergency Decree and causing damage to property, in relation to their participation in the #CountingFromOnetoMillionReturningPowerToPeople assembly at Democracy Monument on 13 February 2021. The Court of Appeal amended the verdict to acquit “Rung” Panusaya for causing damage to property, but otherwise upheld the verdict of the Court of First Instance, sentencing “Mike” Panupong to four months’ imprisonment and a fine of 20,000 baht, with the prison sentence suspended for one year, and ordering him to pay 50,000 baht in damages to the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA).

The prosecution against 3 activists, Siwanchalee Withyaseriwat or “Ramil”, Khunphat Khachana, and Phungboon Jaiyen, stemmed from a complaint filed by the Office of the Constitutional Court alleging the offence of “jointly insulting the Court” under Section 198 of the Criminal Code. The complaint arose from their participation in the “Rama Tulakarn,” expressing their disagreement to the Constitutional Court’s ruling on the case of the eight-year-tenure of Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-ocha. The activity was organised at Ang Kaew, Chiang Mai University on 30 September 2022.

The Court found only Siwanchalee guilty for reciting a poem during the activity and sentenced him to 1 year in prison. In light of valuable testimony, the sentence was reduced to 8 months. The other two defendants were acquitted. Subsequently, the Chiang Mai Provincial Court later allowed Siwanchalee to post bail pending his appeal.

Two SLAPP cases dismissed: People – Media have the right to “scrutinize – criticize” persons holding political office

There has been a noticeable increase of Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP) cases, with members of the public and media personnel increasingly facing defamation by publication charges for expressing criticism, raising questions regarding the qualifications of politicians, or monitoring the performance of their public duties. Many of these cases involve politicians associated with influential “big families” in the provinces.

In June 2026, the Thai Lawyers for Human Rights has represented at least two such cases which have since been dismissed at pretrial hearings by the Courts including the case against “Maywadee” and the case against Kowit.

The case against Kowit Phothisan, editor of The Isaan Record, was initiated by Suchart Chomklin, who filed a complaint against him for defamation by publication. The charge arose from Kowit’s sharing of a post by Hathairat Phahonthep, executive editor of the same outlet, concerning allegations of bribery in connection with the recruitment of Thai workers to berry-picking companies in Finland.

Last month, the Chonburi Provincial Court dismissed to dismiss Suchart’s complaint at the preliminary examination stage, finding that Kowit, in his capacity as a media professional, had legitimate grounds to disclose information concerning Suchart’s performance of public duties and to express fair comments and criticisms, which fall within the scope of conduct that the members of the public are entitled to undertake. The Court further found that the content published by Kowit indicated that a significant number of workers had suffered hardship and damages, and that the matter concerned public interest. The Court held that Kowit had no intention to maliciously target or defame Suchart, but had acted to seek justice and serve as a voice for affected members of the public.

Similarly, in the case against “Maywadee” (pseudonym), a Burapha University student, was initiated by Ratchanee Phonsue, who filed a complaint against her for sharing posts concerning legal proceedings involving the Phonsue family.

In the previous month, the Roi Et Provincial Court dismissed to dismiss Ratchanee’s complaint dat the preliminary examination stage, finding that politicians and political candidates are public figures who can be subject to reasonable criticisms. The Court found that Maywadee’s sharing of the posts prior to the election, which questioned the qualifications of an election candidate, was a legitimate exercise of the right of members of the public to express opinions and was made in good faith.

Meanwhile, in May 2026, the President of The Supreme Court of Thailand issued an Anti-SLAPP recommendation as guidance for reviewing and screening the exercise of the right to file criminal complaints, with the aim of ensuring that such complaints are made in good faith and preventing the misuse of judicial procedures as a tool to harass or restrict the public’s freedom of expression.

Such recommendation aims to provide guidance for courts in considering and examining the exercise of the right to file criminal lawsuits that may be characterized by harassment, abuse of process, or an intention to impose an undue burden on litigants. It also affirms the important principle that the justice system must not be used in a manner that distorts the purpose of the law or as a tool to suppress the rights and freedoms of individuals.

Nonetheless, developments in the prosecution of SLAPP-related cases and their judicial outcomes will require continued monitoring.

Situation of bail application: All bail applications have been rejected, none of the captive has been granted right to bail

In June 2026, five political prisoners, including Atthaphon “Kru Yai” Buaphat, Jatupat “Pai” Boonpattararaksa, Nawarat “Amp” Liengwattana, Boonkueanun “Francis” Paothong, and Promsorn “Fah” Veerathamjaree, submitted bail applications. The Court nevertheless rejected all applications, continuing the pattern observed in previous months and preventing them from securing release on bail while exercising their right to defend themselves in court.

Atthaphon “Kru Yai” and Jatupat “Pai” submitted bail applications in relation to the Section 112 and Section 116 cases arising from the #19SeptToReclaimPowerOfRatsadon assembly, marking their sixth and fourth bail applications, respectively, while the proceedings remain pending before the Court of First Instance. The Court, however, denied both applications. For Jatupat, this is the only remaining case preventing his release, resulting in his continued detention despite having been granted bail by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal Region 4 in another case.

In addition, in the past month, Atthaphon submitted bail applications in three other cases, including the cases arising from the #Mob26Oct20 assembly at the German Embassy, the speeches delivered during the 18 November 2020 assembly at Ratchaprasong Intersection, and the #Mob10Feb21 “Gathering of Starving People, Banging Pots and Pans to Chase Out Dictators” assembly. Nevertheless, the Bangkok South Criminal Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed the applications, respectively.

Boonkueanun “Francis” applied for his bail pending the Supreme Court’s trial in a Section 110 case, in which he was accused of obstructing the Queen’s royal motorcade during the assembly on 14 October 2020. Despite the 6^th attempt of bail bail application submission, the Supreme Court still dismissed.

Promsorn “Fah” submitted his fourth bail application in relation to his Section 112 case pending before the Supreme Court, arising from the assembly in front of Khlong Luang Police Station on 14 January 2021. The Court nevertheless denied the application, reasoning that tthere were no grounds to justify changing the existing order.

Nawat “Amp”, who has been detained in relation to a Section 112 case, was scheduled to complete his sentence and be released on 7 July 2026. Although he had also been granted bail in other cases in which he had been convicted, the Court refused to grant bail in three additional cases where he had previously withdrawn his bail applications at his own request. These three cases remain at the witness examination stage, with no judgments having been issued. As a result, his lawyers continue to submit bail applications on his behalf.

“Ter” former member of Korat Movement indicted on Section 112 for speeches made during livestreaming of the “Stand, Stop, Detention” assembly to demand repeal of Section 112 – Reform of Monarchy in 2021, while one activist has survived prosecution

One new prosecution initiated during the past month, involving a Section 112 case against Makarapong “Ter” Sraprasert, a 27-year-old former activist of the Korat Movement. The case arose from a speech he delivered during the “Stand, Stop, Detention for 112 Minutes” activity held at the Thao Suranari Monument in Nakhon Ratchasima Province on 17 April 2021. He was indicted before the Nakhon Ratchasima Provincial Court and was subsequently granted bail. The Court has scheduled a hearing on rights protection and evidence examination for 17 August 2026.

Initially, the case involved two suspects, Makarapong and Waranyu “Book” Kongsathittham, another Korat activist who participated in the same activity. Waranyu was initially called as a witness in the case; however, he was later charged with violating Section 112 as well. The public prosecutor subsequently decided not to pursue prosecution against Waranyu and proceeded only with the case against Makarapong.

Report launched “Geography of (In)Justice: The Problem of Remote Prosecutions: Examining the Law, the Impacts, and Proposals for Reform”

On 26 June 2026, the Thai Lawyers for Human Rights in collaboration with the TU Law Center, Faculty of Law, Thammasat University, and the Legal Aid Center, Faculty of Law, Chulalongkorn University, launched the report “Geography of (In)Justice: The Problem of Remote Prosecutions: Examining the Law, the Impacts, and Proposals for Reform” led by Assoc. Prof. Sawatree Suksri.

This report highlights how cases filed in jurisdictions far from the accused persons’ places of residence, particularly those involving Section 112 and the Computer Crime Act, can undermine the effectiveness of legal defence by imposing significant financial burdens, consuming considerable time, and creating barriers to access to justice. Such cases may be used strategically to achieve “punishment through procedure”, whereby the burdens of the legal process itself become a form of punishment. This practice directly affects the right to a fair trial, the principle of equality of arms, and the right to effectively participate in legal proceedings.

This report therefore proposes an overhaul of the criminal jurisdiction framework to ensure that cases are adjudicated in an appropriate jurisdiction, strengthen human rights protections through proper judicial review of jurisdictional matters, and establish safeguards against the misuse of the justice system as a political tool. Such reforms would help achieve a proper balance within Thailand’s judicial process between the State’s interest in procedural efficiency and the protection of individuals’ fundamental rights.

Report launch “Geography of (In)Justice: The Problem of Remote Prosecutions: Examining the Law, the Impacts, and Proposals for Reform”

Statement of the People’s Amnesty Bill Network: Amnesty Bill that Excludes Section 112 is an act of discrimination by representatives of the people

On 30 June 2026, the Senate deliberated on the draft Act on Promoting a Peaceful Society during its second and third readings. While voting in favour of the Draft Act, senators raised the issue of whether the Bill should provide amnesty to individuals under 18 years of age who have been convicted under Section 112 of the Criminal Code. It was concluded that “no amnesty on Section 112 cases shall be offered, even for youth, in all circumstances”. Procedurally, following these amendments, the Bill must be resubmitted to the House of Representatives for consideration. The Members of Parliament may either agree with the amendments made by the Senate, retain the original version of the Bill, or establish a joint vetting committee to further review the Bill before submitting it to to HM the King for endorsement.

The People’s Amnesty Bill Network proposed the People’s Amnesty Bill B.E.… which included an amnesty on Section 112. The Bill was, however, rejected by the House of Representatives. The Network has since released a statement indicating that any discriminatory Amnesty Bill shall not serve as a remedy and shall not lesson social conflicts. On the contrary, it shall further restrict the right to freedom of expression and will further drive a wedge that divides society. And this shall affect the status of the monarchy in the people’s mind.

According to the Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, of the total 55 political prisoners (as of 3 July 2026), only around ten individuals are expected to benefit from the Amnesty Bill. Consequently, all political prisoners detained in connection with Section 112 cases would remain in detention.