Criminal Court sentences “Tawan” to two years under Section 112 for livestreaming on the clearing of a farmers’ protest before a royal motorcade; court finds an intention to defame, not a good-faith exercise of rights; bail granted pending appeal

On 31 August 2026 at 9.00 a.m., the Criminal Court was scheduled to deliver judgment on “Tawan” Tantawan Tuatulanon, a 25-year-old student and activist, on a principal charge of lèse-majesté under Section 112 of the Criminal Code, over a Facebook livestream on the clearing of a farmers’ protest from the footpath on Ratchadamnoen Nok Road shortly before a royal motorcade passed, on 5 March 2022.

The court held that this was questioning that concealed defamation and the expression of malice; that if she had wished to criticize the police she could have done so without implicating or defaming the King; and that because she spoke insultingly on several occasions, this showed an intention to defame and was not a good-faith exercise of rights. It convicted her under Section 112 and sentenced her to two years’ imprisonment, without suspension, and imposed a fine of 600 baht for disobeying an official’s order. On the same day, the Criminal Court granted her bail pending appeal.

On 5 March 2022, Tantawan livestreamed on her personal Facebook account from the footpath on Ratchadamnoen Nok Road, opposite the United Nations headquarters building, shortly before a motorcade carrying King Rama X was due to pass. Police used force to arrest her and took her to Phaya Thai Police Station, and then on to the Narcotics Suppression Bureau, which was not the district in which the alleged offense took place. They initially refused to allow her lawyer to see her, saying that they were waiting for an order from a superior.

The public prosecutor subsequently filed an indictment on four charges: Section 112; Sections 14(2) and (3) of the Computer Crimes Act; “resisting or obstructing an official in the performance of his duty” under Section 138; and “failing to comply with such an order without reasonable cause or excuse” under Section 368.

This case has also twice led to Tantawan being held in prison, and on both occasions she went on hunger strike. The first was in 2022, when she was held for 37 days after the court revoked her bail. The second was in 2023, when she asked for her own bail to be revoked, together with “Bam”, in protest at the injustice of the courts and to demand the right to bail for political detainees; she went on hunger strike again, this time for 53 days.

The court heard prosecution and defense witnesses between 2023 and 2026, over seven hearings in all. The defense argued that the words spoken in the livestream were questions and criticism of how the police performed their duties, which is permitted under the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution; that she had no intention of defaming the King; that the motorcade route was not the road on which she was standing; and that she did not obstruct or assault the officers during the arrest, but struggled because they did not tell her where she was being taken. After the witness examination concluded, the court set 31 August 2026 for judgment.

Read the witness examination record: The witness examination record in the second Section 112 case against “Tawan”, over the livestream before a royal motorcade in front of the UN: maintaining that the intention was to question the police about moving the farmers’ protest, not to defame the King

The court holds that the defendant spoke insultingly of the King on several occasions, showing an intention to defame, and not the good-faith exercise of rights as claimed

Today (31 August 2026), before 9.00 a.m., about 10 independent journalists and members of the public were waiting in the press area in front of the Criminal Court to show their support for Tantawan. The list outside Courtroom 906 showed seven cases that morning, most of them scheduled for judgment, so there were around 20 to 25 people in the courtroom. The president and a delegation from the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) also attended as observers.

At 9.26 a.m., three judges came out and took the bench. About 10 minutes later, while the judges were dealing with another case, Tantawan arrived at the courtroom with about seven supporters. There were no court marshals in the courtroom, only one Department of Corrections officer, who had brought in a detained defendant in another case.

At 9.55 a.m., the presiding judge called the case and began reading the judgment, which may be summarized as follows:

From the witness examination, the facts establish that a royal motorcade was scheduled to convey the King and the Queen from the Amorn Phiman Mani Throne Hall to Wat Debsirin on 5 March 2022 at 5.00 p.m., taking the route from the Makkhawan Rangsan intersection into Krung Kasem Road.

The defendant stood on the median strip of Ratchadamnoen Road, in front of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Royal Thai Army, and conducted a livestream on a mobile telephone, using the words that appear in the prosecution’s video clip and in the transcript of that video.

*The issue for determination is whether the defendant committed the offenses charged.*

The prosecution called Pol.Col. Somyot Udomraksasap (then Superintendent of Nang Loeng Police Station), Pol.Lt.Col. Jongsak Chansri (Deputy Superintendent for Investigation at Nang Loeng Police Station and head of the intelligence team at the scene), Pol.Capt. (Female) Daranee Tuprateep (head of the female crowd-control unit) and Pol.L/Cpl. (Female) Pawinee Detpipatwong (female crowd-control officer), who testified consistently that a royal motorcade was scheduled to convey the King and the Queen from the Amorn Phiman Mani Throne Hall to Wat Debsirin on 5 March 2022 at 5.00 p.m., along a route falling within the responsibility of Nang Loeng Police Station and adjoining the area of Phlapphla Chai Police Station.

On the day of the incident, Pol.Col. Somyot was responsible for the safety of the King and members of the royal family, including protection of the motorcade, and for deploying officers on the ground along the route to facilitate its passage. Pol.Lt.Col. Jongsak was responsible for intelligence-gathering at the scene.

On the day of the incident (5 March 2022), while carrying out the security detail, they found the defendant — a person known for activity opposing the monarchy — on the median strip of Ratchadamnoen Road, about 20 meters from the Makkhawan intersection. Pol.Lt.Col. Jongsak then reported this to Pol.Col. Somyot.

The defendant approached Pol.Lt.Col. Jongsak and asked whether she could film the horses — there were horses in front of the UN, for the motorcade. Pol.Lt.Col. Jongsak replied that preparations were being made to receive the motorcade and that she could livestream, but that she would not be able to do so once the motorcade passed, because it would affect security. He tried to invite her to leave, but she did not listen and walked in.

Pol.Capt. (Female) Daranee led officers to where the defendant was standing, and Pol.Col. Somyot went to speak to her, saying that he was exercising powers under the Royal Security Act B.E. 2560 (2017) to order her not to livestream, and that if she disobeyed the order it would constitute disobedience of an official’s order.

Pol.Col. Somyot was informed by radio that the motorcade was approaching, and asked the defendant to stop livestreaming a second time, but she did not comply. The radio then reported that the motorcade had arrived, and Pol.Col. Somyot asked her to stop livestreaming a third time. The defendant ignored him, and Pol.Col. Somyot therefore instructed Pol.Capt. (Female) Daranee and her subordinates to seize her and put her in a vehicle.

Pol.L/Cpl. (Female) Pawinee got into the vehicle and tried to grip the defendant’s legs. The defendant kicked her in the lower abdomen about three or four times, resisted and struggled, and continued to livestream throughout. While in the police vehicle she also tried to kick the seat. On arrival at Phaya Thai Police Station, they found that a group calling itself Thalu Fah had blockaded the station.

Pol.Col. Somyot therefore consulted and moved to the Narcotics Suppression Bureau, where she was charged with “resisting or obstructing an official in the performance of his duty” under Section 138 and “failing to comply with such an order without reasonable cause or excuse” under Section 368.

The defendant subsequently experienced abdominal pain and vomiting and underwent an ultrasound examination. Her internal organs were not injured, but there was bruising on her abdomen and arms.

From the video transcript, the defendant said:

“What route? Can I look at the horses? Can I admire the horses? Can I walk up close and look?… Right now I’m here on my own. There are horses in front of the UN. Whose royal procession is this? There are horses too.” เส้นทางอะไรคะ หนูดูม้าได้ไหม หนูชมม้าได้ไหม หนูเดินชมใกล้ ๆ ได้ไหม…ตอนนี้อยู่คนเดียว หน้า UN มีม้าด้วย อันนี้ใครเสด็จคะ มีม้าด้วย

“…The royal motorcade, that made the farmers’ protest have to move. Instead of sending state officials or the government down to talk to the people, they moved the farmers’ protest out instead. They didn’t go down and talk to them about what the problem is, or how it would be solved — they made the villagers leave that place so that a royal motorcade could pass.” …ขบวนเสด็จ ที่ทำให้ม็อบชาวนาต้องย้าย นะคะ แทนที่จะส่งเจ้าหน้าที่รัฐ หรือรัฐบาลลงไปคุยกับประชาชนแต่กลับย้ายม็อบชาวนาออก ไม่ลงไปคุยกับเขา ว่าปัญหาคืออะไร จะแก้ไขยังไง แต่กลับให้ชาวบ้านออกจากตรงนั้นเพื่อจะมีขบวนเสด็จผ่าน

“Why do the farmers’ protest have to be moved?… Between the people and the King, which one do you have to look after?… Let it be known that a farmers’ protest has to be moved just because someone is passing in a royal procession…” ทำไมต้องย้ายม็อบชาวนา…ระหว่างประชาชนกับพระมหากษัตริย์พี่ต้องดูแลใครคะ…ให้มันรู้เอาไว้ ว่าม็อบชาวนาจะต้องถูกย้ายเพียงเพราะมีคนเสด็จนะคะ…

“…The farmers’ protest has to move. Instead of going to listen to their problems, they drive them out, just because one single person is passing. Remember it, then: between the people and the King, who is more important?…” …ม็อบชาวนาต้องย้าย แทนที่จะไปฟังปัญหาเขาแต่กลับไล่เขาออก เพียงเพราะมีคน ๆ เดียวเสด็จ ก็จำเอาไว้ละกัน ระหว่างประชาชนกับพระมหากษัตริย์ ใครมันสำคัญกว่ากัน…

Pol.Lt.Col. Jongsak then notified the additional charges under Section 112 and the Computer Crimes Act.

The defendant testified that she had completed an Advanced Diploma in Singapore and is currently studying at university level, in the Faculty of Journalism and Mass Communication at Thammasat University and the Faculty of Law at Ramkhamhaeng University. She has been interested in politics since 2020.

Before the incident she had arranged to have a meal with friends. A bronze-colored sedan followed her car, so she drove to the Dusit Kwaeng Court because it was a government building and she hoped officials there would help, but the car following her did not stop. She then went to Samsen Police Station to make a daily record entry, but the police took no further action.

The defendant canceled the appointment and traveled to the farmers’ protest, which she knew was near Samsen Police Station, but she did not find the protest. She found police officers and a white horse, and so livestreamed about the hardship the farmers’ protest had suffered, because she had previously stayed and eaten at the protest. The defendant raised questions about the police officers’ performance of their duties.

When the defendant was arrested, the police officers did not inform her of her legal rights, did not notify her of the charges, and did not tell her where she was being taken. The defendant had no intention of assaulting the officers, but wanted to push herself out of the vehicle.

In this case the public prosecutor asked that the sentence run consecutively to the sentence in a case before the Nonthaburi Kwaeng Court in which the court dismissed the charges (the assembly to oust Gen. Prayut Chan-o-cha on 30 September 2021).

In addition, the defendant called Professor Somchai Preechasilpakul, who testified that the defendant’s conduct was the asking of questions and not an assertion of fact; that it was expression and the giving of an opinion that the public may engage in as guaranteed by Section 34 of the Constitution; and that it did not satisfy the elements of an offense under Section 112 of the Criminal Code.

*On the charge of “defaming the King” under Section 112 and the Computer Crimes Act, the court held that for conduct to constitute the offense of defaming the King, the words must assert a fact, or the person must speak words or make any gesture that is improper and diminishes the honor of the King, or express malice toward the King; and the surrounding context must be considered.*

As to the defendant’s claim that this was a good-faith expression of opinion under Section 34 of the Constitution, the court held that it was questioning that concealed defamation and malice. Although the motorcade had not yet arrived at that time, the area was one in which the procession was being assembled to receive the King, and providing security for a head of state is a normal matter in all civilized nations.

The King is positioned above politics and exercises his powers through the parliament. Resolving the grievances of protesters is the duty of the Council of Ministers, not of the King. The defendant is studying law and must therefore be well aware of this fact.

As to the defendant’s claim that the farmers’ protest had to move because the King was passing by car, and that the King neglects the people — if the defendant wished to criticize the police officers, she could have done so without implicating or defaming the King. But the defendant spoke insultingly on several occasions, which shows an intention to defame, and was not a good-faith exercise of rights.

The defendant’s conduct was carried out through Facebook, which constitutes entering data into a computer system. She is therefore guilty of entering false data affecting national security.

*On the charge of “failing to comply with an order without reasonable cause or excuse” under Section 368, the facts establish that while the defendant was livestreaming, Pol.Col. Somyot prohibited her three times, but she ignored him, and he ordered her to leave the area. The female police officers who made the arrest were kicked and pushed.*

Considering Section 6 of the Royal Security Act, the Royal Thai Police is a state agency with a duty to provide royal security, and Pol.Col. Somyot, as an officer of the Royal Thai Police, had the power to issue orders. Having prohibited the defendant from livestreaming, and the defendant having ignored him, the defendant is guilty of failing to comply with an order without reasonable cause or excuse.

*On the charge of “resisting or obstructing an official” under Section 138, the witnesses testified consistently that she was seized, her legs were gripped, and she was lifted into the vehicle, with Pol.L/Cpl. (Female) Pawinee trying to grip her legs to stop her using her feet, because the defendant had kicked her. The defendant resisted with her arms, elbows, and body, struggled, and kicked out with her feet.*

It appears that when the defendant was arrested there was no notification of her legal rights and no notification of the charges; she was arrested immediately, and while in the police vehicle she was not told where she was being taken. It is only natural that she would be frightened. Although she used her feet against the officers, the defendant was merely struggling out of fright in order to get free of the arrest. It cannot be found that she had an intention to assault the officers.

*The court finds the defendant guilty under Section 112, Section 368, and Sections 14(2) and (3) of the Computer Crimes Act, and further orders the forfeiture of the exhibit, namely the defendant’s mobile telephone.*

The defendant’s conduct constitutes several distinct offenses under Section 91 of the Criminal Code. The offense of defaming the King under Section 112 and the offense under the Computer Crimes Act are a single act breaching several provisions of law, *so the heaviest provision is applied, Section 112: three years’ imprisonment; and for disobeying an official’s order, a fine of 900 baht.*

*The defendant’s testimony was of benefit to the proceedings, so the sentence is reduced by one third under Section 78 of the Criminal Code: for “defaming the King” under Section 112, two years’ imprisonment; and for “disobeying an official’s order” under Section 368, a fine of 600 baht remains. The custodial sentence is not suspended.*

As to the prosecutor’s request that the sentence run consecutively to the Nonthaburi Kwaeng Court case, the court in that case dismissed the charges and the case is final, so no consecutive sentence can be ordered. All other requests are dismissed.

After the court finished reading the judgment, Tantawan nodded and walked back to sit and wait for the officers. One member of the public raised a hand to ask the court whether they could serve the prison sentence in her place, since Tantawan was still studying and there was nothing wrong in what she had done — she was just a young person who had come out to speak about the farmers’ problems — and asked what would happen if she were not granted bail.

The judge asked who this person was, and said that if they had something they wanted to get off their chest they could say it; that it depended on one’s point of view; that this was a judgment of the Court of First Instance and the higher court could still rule on it; that not everyone could be made to see things as they did; that they should not be hasty; that each person was doing their own job; and that they should try filing a bail request first and ask questions afterwards. The case had followed the process: the police sent the case for prosecution, the prosecutor filed the indictment, and the court agreed with the prosecutor.

Tantawan said that she understood that it followed the process, but that if the courts never saw the hardship of the people there would be no change — if people with power like the judge could not see the hardship of the people.

Afterwards, Department of Corrections officers took Tantawan down to the area beneath the court to wait for the bail decision. Before she was handcuffed, she raised her hands above her head and waved goodbye to the members of the public who had come to support her in the courtroom.

At about 5.00 p.m., the Criminal Court ordered that Tantawan be granted bail pending appeal, on a surety of 100,000 baht provided with assistance from the Ratsadonprasong Fund, together with a condition prohibiting her from leaving the Kingdom.

Tantawan has been prosecuted in two cases under Section 112 arising from her political activity. The case in which the court delivered judgment today is the second. In the first Section 112 case, the Bangkok South Criminal Court recently dismissed the charges over an opinion poll asking “Do you think royal motorcades cause inconvenience?”, conducted at the Paragon department store, on the ground that it was merely the asking of a question and that the defendant’s conduct did not satisfy the elements of the offenses of insult, defamation, or expression of malice.

Related articles

Police arrest “Tawan” over a livestream before a royal motorcade, take her into custody and notify a Section 112 charge, alleging that she “devalued” the King, and notify a further case over a poll on the inconvenience caused by royal motorcades The indictment in the Section 112 case against “Tawan” over a livestream before a royal motorcade: the prosecutor alleges that she spoke words intended to convey that the King does not listen to the hardship of the people