Updated: Plead guilty or rot in jail

PPT posted back on 8 July 2010 on the case of British man Jeff Savage. He was arrested and charged for the political crime of violating the emergency decree while taking part in the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) or red shirt protests. He was freed after his jail term was halved because he confessed to the political crime and promptly deported.

However, the Australian Conor David Purcell, who was similarly charged, decided to enter a not guilty plea and was outspoken at the same time. PPT commented that Purcell could expect considerable “punishment,” because he refused to plead guilty. It is now almost de facto “law” in Thailand that in political crimes, including lese majeste, a guilty plea is the demanded response or jail time “awaiting trial” drags on forever. And, when sentenced, the sentences are harsher for a failure to plead guilty.

Purcell appears to have “seen the light.” While not scheduled for a court appearance until September, his case suddenly appeared again. The Bangkok Post reports that the “Pathumwan District Court on Friday ordered the release of Australian Conor David Purcell after he confessed to violating the emergency decree, taking into account time already served behind bars.” The Post doesn’t note any irony in its report that says: “On the same day [that Savage was sentenced in July], Purcell  denied the charges, saying he wanted to fight the case. He changed his mind and decided to plead guilty today, and was sentenced to jail and ordered released.”

This is an important reminder that the Thai justice system is highly politicized and unjust. Purcell (and high-profile political prisoners) can expect to rot in horrid jails until they “admit” their “crimes” or somehow recant. Suddenly becoming a king-loving royalist is one strategy. It is a despicable system of double standards and as one journalist stated not that long ago, “Nobody receives justice in Thailand.”

Update: Soon after PPT posted the information above, we became aware of a more detailed account of Purcell’s court appearance. It is worth reading in full. Noteworthy, however, is the judge in the case actually making PPT’s point from above. Apparently, Purcell “[i]nitially, during Friday’s hearing, … continued to protest his innocence.” He stated: “The arrest was illegal, I was never shown an (arrest) warrant. How can I trust the judicial system?” The story continues: “Purcell said he had been beaten in jail and had been refused medical assistance by a judge during an earlier bail application hearing.”

Judge Somchart Lertkhitworakul delivered his verdict saying: “I can guarantee justice in this case…. If you do accept the charges then I can proceed to judgment.”Apparently Purcell was also “encouraged by his lawyers to ‘admit to the crime’ as ‘it will be useful to your interests’.” His lawyer apparently opined: “If you admit (to the charge) you will receive a reduced sentence…”. It was then, in the face of this concerted appeal and threat that “Purcell, referring to family members and friends who had supported him, then agreed to change his plea.”

Purcell’s lawyer, Siriporn Muangsrinun, “said Purcell would be deported, but she believed the verdict was a good outcome” She added: “This is a good result for everyone who is concerned for him…”. That might be true, but it is also a result that points to deep flaws in the Thai justice system.