July 2026: Section 112 case dismissed over the royal motorcade poll, while “Netiwit” receives a suspended sentence for conscientious objection to military conscription

In July 2026, one more person was charged: Pavin Chachavalpongpun. His involvement came to light through the case of “Wela” (pseudonym), who was arrested in Chiang Mai and taken to face Section 112 proceedings in Phatthalung province over a post in the Facebook group “Royalist Marketplace–Talad Luang,” in which Pavin was named as one of the accused. That brings the total number of people prosecuted to at least 1,999, in 1,347 cases, of which 583 cases remain ongoing.

Throughout July 2026, courts ruled in at least eight cases arising from public assembly and political expression — three Section 112 cases and five other cases connected to assembly and political expression.

The Court dismissed the Section 112 case brought over the royal motorcade poll against Tawan and six others, seven people in all. TheCourt of Appeal also dismissed the case against four members of the public arising from the #Mob11AugustHuntingDownTyrants assembly. Other cases resulted in prison sentences: in the Section 112 case against Arnon Nampa, the Court of Appeal Region 5 upheld a two-year prison sentence; and in the case against Netiwit for conscientious objection to compulsory military conscription, the Court of First Instance sentenced him to six months in prison, suspended for one year.

There was also an incident in which “Thanit” , who had expressed political opinions, was harassed and physically assaulted by a group claiming to defend the monarchy. The person assaulted was found to have a history of psychiatric treatment. Police have yet to charge him under Section 112, while Thanit has filed a complaint over the assault.

Over the past month the court delivered its ruling in the post-mortem inquest into the death of “Bung” Netiporn, leaving unresolved the question of the Department of Corrections’ standard of care. The Court also refused permission for “Baipor,” a Section 112 defendant, to travel abroad to take part in a human rights program.

According to Thai Lawyers for Human Rights’ monitoring, from the start of the “Free Youth” assembly on 18 July 2020 until 31 July 2026, at least 1,999 people have been prosecuted for exercising assembly and political expression, in 1,347 cases.

Compared to June 2026, the number of people charged and/or prosecuted has increased by one, while the number of cases remains unchanged. (This figure counts only cases arising from public assembly and political expression in which the individuals have already been notified of the charges, and does not count defamation suits brought by politicians against members of the public in various provinces.)

Counting each criminal case separately, without deducting people charged in more than one case, the total comes to at least 4,078 instances of criminal proceedings.

Statistics by principal charge are as follows:

Section 112 (lèse-majesté) of the Criminal Code — at least 292 people in 321 cases, of which at least 171 were brought following complaints lodged by members of the public. (One more accused than the previous month; the number of cases is unchanged.)
Section 116 (sedition) of the Criminal Code — at least 158 people accused in 58 cases. (One more person, in one more case, than the previous month.)
Violation of the Emergency Decree — at least 1,466 people in 678 cases.
Violation of the Public Assembly Act — at least 202 people in 111 cases.
Violation of the Computer Crimes Act — at least 222 people in 243 cases.
Contempt of court — at least 45 people in 27 cases; and insulting the court — at least 37 people in 11 cases.

Of those 1,347 cases, 832 have concluded. (However, some cases have not concluded in their entirety — for example, where an appeal has been brought on behalf of only some defendants while the cases against others have concluded.) Meanwhile,at least 583 cases remain ongoing and are at various stages of proceedings, with hearings to deliver verdicts continuing to fall month by month.

The political prosecution trends inJuly 2026 were as follows.

Chiang Mai resident arrested and charged under Section 112 in Phatthalung; “Pavin” identified as a further accused

“Wela” (full name withheld), a 34-year-old resident of Chiang Mai, was arrested by police outside his residence in Mueang Chiang Mai district on charges under Sections 112 and 116. It was later found that the case was being handled by Khao Chaison Police Station in Phatthalung Province. The changes stemmed from a post in the Facebook group “Royalist Marketplace–Talad Luang,” in which a link to a video clip concerning royal duties performed by King Rama X was attached, on which another accused person had left a comment. After being taken to be notified of the charges, Wela was granted bail by the police at the investigation stage.

The complaint in this case was lodged with the inquiry official by Songchai Niamhom, leader of the Pracha Phak Phithak Sathaban group. There are three accused in all: the person who made the post (Wela), the person who commented (a member of the public, no information available), and Pavin Chachavalpongpun, identified as an administrator of that Facebook group.

TLHR had previously counted this case against “Wela” in its data, having learned that charges had been notified against one further accused person who had commented on the post in question, though without knowing how the case had progressed. It has only now learned that Pavin was also charged in this case, and has therefore counted Pavin Chachavalpongpun as one further person charged — bringing the total number of people charged under Section 112 to 292.

A “psychiatric patient” assaulted at his residence by a group claiming to “protect the monarchy” and taken to a police station, over expression concerning the monarchy

In the early evening of 22 July 2026, a group calling itself “Kong Ruea Narok” surrounded and physically assaulted a person named “Thanit” (a pseudonym), a 42-year-old psychiatric patient, over expression concerning the monarchy. They also lodged a Section 112 complaint against him and put him in a pickup truck to be delivered to Tao Poon Police Station.

As matters stand, however, police have not notified any Section 112 charge, though they did seize his mobile telephone before taking him to Don Mueang Police Station. Thanit, together with a lawyer who accompanied him, then filed a complaint against that group over the assault.

Section 112 case dismissed over the poll asking “do royal motorcades cause inconvenience?”

Across July 2026, courts ruled in at least eight cases arising from public assembly and political expression — three Section 112 cases and five other cases connected to assembly and political expression — together with the ruling in the post-mortem inquest into the death in custody of “Bung” Netiporn.

The case against Tantawan Tuatulanon and six others, seven people in all, arose from an opinion poll asking “Do you think royal motorcades cause you inconvenience?”, conducted at Siam Paragon department store on 8 February 2022. On 6 July 2026, the Bangkok South Criminal Court dismissed the case against all seven defendants on the principal charges under Sections 112 and 116.

The court held that the questionnaire named no one and contained no royal name, and was an expression of opinion protected by the Constitution. It nonetheless fined each of the seven defendants 5,000 baht for disobeying an official’s order, and sentenced Worawet to four months’ imprisonment for obstructing an official.

During the proceedings in this case, “Bung” Netiporn died in custody. She had been on hunger strike demanding the right to bail and calling for reform of the justice process.

Read the full judgment: The full dismissal judgment in the Section 112 and 116 case over the poll asking “do royal motorcades cause inconvenience?”

The case against Arnon Nampa arose from a speech at the “Party by the Hill, Blowing Out Birthday Candles for Admiral Quack-Quack” assembly at the Art and Culture Centre of Chiang Mai University, organized by the “Prachakhom Mor Chor” group on 23 November 2020. On 16 July 2026, the Chiang Mai Provincial Court read the judgment of the Court of Appeal Region 5, which upheld the Court of First Instance and imposed two years’ imprisonment.

Following the judgment in this case, three United Nations Special Rapporteurs issued a statement expressing concern at the punishment of Arnon for exercising his freedom of expression, and at his arbitrary detention, and calling for his immediate release.

The case against Kittipong Juanwanphen, a 46-year-old clothing trader from Bangkok, arose from sharing an image on Facebook together with two posts he wrote during 2025. On 23 July 2026, the Wiang Sa Provincial Court (Surat Thani province) sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment on each count; as the defendant pleaded guilty, the sentence was reduced to one year and six months on each count, making two years and 12 months in total across the two counts, suspended for two years.

“Netiwit” sentenced to six months, suspended for one year, for conscientious objection to military conscription

Among the other cases arising from political expression, the courts delivered judgment in five cases.

The case against “Mike” Panupong Jadnok, “Hoi” Thanachai Uearuecha, and Chatmongkol Wanlee arose from their participation in the “Looking for the Masters” activity on 28 September 2020, outside the 4th Cavalry Battalion, 1st Division, King’s Guard, to press commanding officers for progress in disciplining three plain-clothes conscripts who had put protesters in arm and neck locks during an earlier incident.

On 2 July 2026, the Criminal Court read the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which upheld the terms of imprisonment (suspended for two years) and the fines imposed by the Court of First Instance on all three, changing only the sentence on Panupong on the charge of using a sound amplifier without permission, which was converted to an administrative fine of 200 baht.

The case against four members of the public — Mesa Thueanma , Apichat Sirima , Nattaphon (surname withheld), and Chaiyapat Saksricharoenying, who were prosecuted over their participation in the #Mob11AugustHuntingDownTyrants assembly in 2021 at Victory Monument. On 13 July 2026, the Criminal Court read the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which upheld the dismissal on every charge.

The case against Phuengbun Jaiyen, a 40-year-old tattoo artist, who was prosecuted on a charge of “causing damage to property used or held for the public benefit” for writing the words “ประเทศทวย” on a road sign and an electrical cabinet on Huay Kaew Road during 2020.

On 14 July 2026, the Chiang Mai Provincial Court imposed a fine of 5,000 baht per count on two counts, a total fine of 10,000 baht, holding that although this was an exercise of freedom of political expression at that time, it nonetheless caused damage to a road sign, which is public property.

The case against “Frank” Netiwit Chotiphatphaisal, a 29-year-old social activist who has expressed his refusal of military conscription for more than 12 years, who was prosecuted on a charge of evading military conscription arising from his conscientious objection to taking part in compulsory conscription.

On 20 July 2026, the Samut Prakan Kwaeng Court had listed the case for the reading of the Constitutional Court’s ruling, which held that compulsory military conscription is not contrary to the Constitution as regards freedom of religion; the defense applied for the court to read its judgment on the same day. The court found him guilty under Sections 27 and 45 of the Military Service Act and imposed six months’ imprisonment, suspended for one year. The defense is preparing to appeal.

The case against Pannapat Chanthanangkun and six others, seven people in all, arose from their joining the assembly outside the Myanmar embassy, #Mob1Feb21. On 23 July 2026, the Court of Appeal amended the sentences on all the defendants: whereas the Court of First Instance had treated the conduct as several distinct offenses and sentenced separately on each count, the Court of Appeal held it to be a single act violating several provisions and sentenced under the most serious provision instead.

As to Pannapat, the only defendant to contest the case, the court changed the sentence to four months’ imprisonment and a fine of 14,000 baht, with the custodial sentence suspended for two years. For Kiattisak, it was changed to one year and six months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, and a fine of 15,000 baht. For the remaining five defendants, it was changed to two years’ imprisonment and a fine of 30,000 baht.

Thanyaburi Provincial Court delivers the post-mortem inquest ruling on “Bung” Netiporn, recording that the dispute over the Department of Corrections’ treatment and resuscitation remains unresolved as to negligence or intent, and sending the file to the public prosecutor

In the case of “Bung” Netiporn (surname withheld), a 28-year-old activist of the Thalu Wang group who died while detained in prison in a Section 112 case, the Thanyaburi provincial public prosecutor applied for a post-mortem inquest. The family of the deceased put forward as a central issue whether the Corrections Hospital had assisted and resuscitated Netiporn to medical standards, raising misplaced endotracheal intubation, delayed resuscitation, and errors in the administration of medication.

On 15 July 2026, the Thanyaburi Provincial Court ruled that Netiporn died at Thammasat Hospital on 14 May 2024 at 11.22 a.m., the cause being an electrolyte imbalance in the blood together with cardiomegaly, while in the custody of officials acting in the course of their duties. As to the evidence adduced by the family of the deceased to the effect that the cause of death lay in treatment of her illness and in assistance rendered to her while unconscious that did not meet the applicable standard, amounting to intent or gross negligence, the court held that this remained in dispute at this stage and could not be determined as settled in the manner the family’s evidence at the inquest sought to establish.

On Bung’s death, the family and their lawyers are continuing to consult on establishing the truth of the death and on further legal avenues.

Court accepts SLAPP complaints against two members of the public, brought by Rattikan, a Pheu Thai parliamentary candidate, for defamation

Developments concerning “SLAPP” cases continue, in the form of suits or complaints against members of the public and journalists who post material criticizing politicians, calling for their qualifications to be examined, or scrutinizing their performance of their duties — brought on charges of defamation by publication by politicians who tend to be the “Ban Yai” (Big House) in provinces where they hold influence.

In July 2026, in a case in which Thai Lawyers for Human Rights is providing assistance, the court accepted for trial the case against Amnat (surname withheld) and Trin Phoraksa , who were sued by Rattikan Kaewkoedmee , a Pheu Thai Party parliamentary candidate, on a charge of defamation by publication under Section 328 of the Criminal Code, over comments left beneath a Facebook post by Trin questioning vote-buying during the election in February 2026.

Bangkok South Criminal Court refuses “Baipor,” a Section 112 defendant, permission to travel to South Korea for the May 18 Academy human rights program, despite her confirming she has never sought to flee

The difficulty faced by activists accused in Section 112 cases in traveling remains a significant issue, and one that arises periodically.

Over the past month the Bangkok South Criminal Court refused the application by “Baipor” for permission to travel abroad, after she sought leave to travel to Gwangju, South Korea, having been selected to represent Thailand at the “2026 May 18 Academy” democracy and human rights program.

As a result, Baipor will now be unable to attend that program, since it is scheduled for early August 2026 and there is no longer time to prepare either the application or the journey. In previous years Baipor had been granted leave by the courts to travel abroad, and she traveled and returned exactly as scheduled, never having sought to flee.

Nine detainees released from prison, while “Atirut” decides not to appeal to the Supreme Court and enters prison as a prisoner

In July 2026, Atirut (surname withheld), a 29-year-old programmer and a defendant in a Section 112 case arising from shouting “wherever you go, you are a burden” at the motorcade of King Rama X as it left the Queen Sirikit National Convention Center in 2022, decided not to appeal to the Supreme Court, on the ground that the burden of the case was affecting his work. He therefore withdrew his bail and began to be held in prison.

Over the past month, eight detainees whose cases had become final were released from prison, having met the criteria under the Royal Decree on Pardon B.E. 2569 (2026): Wachira, “Panithan”, “Tran”, Weha Saenchonchanasuek, “Leaf” Weerawat, Methee Amornwuttikul, “Hom Daeng” and “Meechai”.

In addition, “Thapana” (a pseudonym), a young person prosecuted over setting fire to a traffic control box at Phaya Thai and throwing explosive objects during the Din Daeng assemblies on 1 October 2021, who had been held at the Ban Karuna Juvenile Vocational Training Centre for Boys, was released on completing the minimum period of training ordered by the court. As matters stand today (7 August 2026), there remain at least 52 political prisoners.

As for “Fah” Promsorn Weerathamjaree, a detainee in a Section 112 case, he has continued his hunger strike since 1 July 2026, demanding the right to bail and the chance to go out and care for his family, his father and mother both being gravely ill. As matters stand, he has still not been granted bail.

Bail for political detainees, first half of 2026: courts refused over 91% of applications, and detainees “granted bail” remain held through bail-revocation cases

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights has published its report on applications for bail for political detainees. Between 1 January and 30 June 2026, at least 108 filings were made across 30 cases — applications for bail and appeals against orders refusing bail (comprising 84 bail applications and 24 appeals against court orders refusing bail).

Of the 108 filings made to the courts, the courts granted bail in only 6 (or 5.56%), across four cases, and refused bail in 99 (or 91.67%), across 26 cases.

Most detainees who have not been granted bail while contesting their cases have been held for long periods since 2023–2025. This reflects a significant issue as to the “right to bail,” a fundamental right under the principle that a person is “presumed innocent until convicted by a final judgment” — yet in practice, for political detainees, that right is refused in very nearly every case.

Read the report: Bail for political detainees, first half of 2026: courts refused over 91% of applications, and the “granted bail but still detained” phenomenon in bail-revocation cases