Nine-year 112 sentence

Clipped from Prachatai

Based on Thai Lawyers for Human Rights reporting, Prachatai has an account of the quite bizarre case of Pakpinya (last name withheld), 31, a  hospital librarian, singer, and model living in Bangkok.

Bizarre is the right term for the whole “case,” cobbled together on yet another complaint by ultra-royalist vigilante Pasit Chanhuaton. He has filed Article 112 complaints against at least eight people with the police in Sungai Kolok.

On 19 October 2022, a court in Narathiwat sentenced Pakpinya “to 9 years in prison on charges of royal defamation and violation of the Computer Crimes Act for sharing Facebook posts about the use of violence to disperse pro-democracy protesters in 2020 and the public being prohibited from using Sanam Luang.”

Phasit searched for and identified six posts he attributed to claiming they constituted lese majeste. He claimed these shared posts were from Facebook pages belonging to activist groups.

Some of these posts criticized police crowd control when they used water cannon against protesters, He claimed that Pakpinya “added a caption saying that people would be able to enter if they wear a yellow shirt.”

The royally deranged Pasit also accused her of sharing a post from คนไทยยูเค claiming that the king ordered the use of violence against protesters. He alleged that she also shared a post critical of the royal use of Sanam Luang while the people were locked out.

Three other posts were about enforced disappearances and the regime’s mismanagement of the Covid-19 pandemic and vaccine production.

TLHR point out that while the police did little investigation and Pasit lied, the court still founf Pakpinya guilty in three of the six instances.

Pasit said:

… he has never met Pakpinya, but insisted that she is the owner of the Facebook profile he filed a complaint against.

During cross-examination, Phasit claimed that he was not involved with the royalist group Citizens’ Network to Protect the Monarchy, even though he stated when he filed his complaint that he was a member. He also claimed not to know who the group’s leaders or members were, and that he knew that the network has been filing royal defamation complaint against people in various provinces, but did not know where.

Phasit said that he took screen captures of the posts from his mobile phone and did not print them out from Facebook, so there was no URL for each post, and that he adjusted the size of each picture before putting them into Microsoft Word and printing them out.

The police apparently didn’t investigate any of Pasit’s claims or his “evidence.” For instance:

Pol Maj Natee Chansaengsri, an inquiry officer at Su-ngai Kolok Provincial Police Station, also testified that he did not ask to see Phasit’s mobile phone, or for the original files of the photos he printed out. The police also did not confiscate Phasit’s mobile phone and laptop, so he could not confirm whether the content used to file the complaint matched with what is on the Facebook profile.

He also said during cross-examination that it was not possible to determine the IP Address that uses the profile, and that identity could not be determined from a YouTube account. He admitted that it is possible for Facebook accounts to share names and that he does not know if information on Facebook can be changed by another person.

After the verdict, Pakpinya was later granted bail with a 200,000-baht security. She said: “I want to know how twisted the Thai justice system can be…”.

The answer is very twisted indeed.

House arrest

Teeranai Charuvastra has another excellent report with Prachatai regarding the house arrest of “two activists known for their campaign to reform the monarchy…”.

Read it an weep for the activists. Pour scorn on the royalist courts. Lament the decline of the justice system.

Updated: More Constitutional Court buffalo manure

No one really expected that the regime’s Constitutional Court would do anything other than allow the coup leader and dictator to stay in power even longer. Neither the court nor the prime minister have a shred of credibility (except with royalist-military dolts). Rather than go on about the predictable buckling of the junta’s own basic law, here are some links to stories on how the court has again crippled the junta’s own constitution:

Thai PBS

From Ji Ungpakorn’s blog

Constitutional Court rules that PM Prayut’s 8-year term in office has not expired

Prayut vows to push ahead with mega-projects

And the fight continues …

Prayut given political lifeline — but what’s next?

The Nation

Constitutional Court rules Prayut can stay on as PM

Thai private sector unfazed by Prayut’s return to PM’s seat

Thai Enquirer

Constitutional Court votes 6:3 to allow Prayut to remain as Premier, says term began on April 6, 2017

Bangkok Post

Prayut remains PM, court rules tenure ends in 2025

Prayut’s staying put

Business chiefs welcome ‘stability’ ruling will bring

PM still at crossroads

Activists call for major anti-Prayut rally on Saturday

Pheu Thai disagrees with Prayut ruling

Prachatai

Court allows Prayut to stay on as PM, new protest called

Thai Newsroom

Court rules Prayut’s eight-year term has not ended

Prayut returns to power with Constitutional Court support

Doubts cast over righteousness of Constitutional Court’s ruling on Prayut

Lawyer: 3 retired generals win but the country loses

Crisis of confidence in Constitutional Court looms: Academic

Update: The Nation lists the five decisions/piles of buffalo dung where the Constitutional Court has supported him.

Royalists courts play royalist politics I

Royalist courts continue to engage in political actions. Prachatai reports that “[t]wo women were arrested last Thursday (25 August) and subsequently denied bail on charges of contempt of court, defamation, and using a sound amplifier without permission.”

The complaints were filed “on behalf of judge Santi Chukitsappaisan, Research Justice of the Supreme Court, temporarily acting as the Deputy Chief Justice of the South Bangkok Criminal Court.” Ngoentra Khamsaen and Chiratchaya Sakunthong “were arrested during the night of 25 August on warrants issued by the South Bangkok Criminal Court on a request from Yannawa Police Station…” and were a result of “a protest in front of the South Bangkok Criminal Court on 15 July to demand the right to bail for detained activists.”

The two were not were taken to the Yannawa police station, but like other political prisoners, were initially detained at the Narcotics Suppression Bureau.

Neither woman received a summons before being arrested.

Apparently, amongst other things that annoyed the judges of the South Bangkok Criminal Court, the women “criticized judges … for rulings made in the case of monarchy reform activists Nutthanit Duangmusit and Netiporn Sanesangkhom,” both charged with lese majeste.

After being taken to the South Bangkok Criminal Court, the two were denied bail on the spurious “grounds that their actions were very dangerous to the court and the justice system, since they were rude and accused judges of things that were not true in order to pressure the court, which the court sees as a disregard for the law and an intention to create hatred against it.”

The judges know that they are political tools of the royalist regime and thus seek to silence criticism.

There are another 29 political prisoners currently detained without bail. Two others are under house detention.

Rich people and “justice”

It seems like the expiration of yet another charge facing Vorayuth “Boss” Yoovidhya has caused the regime some grief. So much so that it has wheeled out its chief legal huckster Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam.

He has babbled about authorities stepping up efforts to locate the rich fugitive and bring back  to face punishment. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, as 10 years of stalling, bribery, influence, looking away, and doing nothing have shown.

Wissanu was, in fact, “responding to a question during a parliamentary session from Theeratchai Panthumas, a Move Forward Party MP, who asked about progress in the case.” Prsumably Wissanu felt the need to come up with the usual nonsense.

His exact words are quoted: “Authorities will use all means and channels available and work with other countries to bring him to justice…”.

Apparently, the hopelessly biased National Anti-Corruption Commission “is also considering whether to launch an inquiry against 15 people, including police officers and soldiers, for their alleged role in obstructing justice in the case.” Wow. It has only taken a decade to get to this point!

The pursuit of Vorayuth has been a farce from the beginning. Most Thais understand that the rich and the “good” get a different justice from the average person. What the average person gets is a sad joke.

Wither the (in)justice system

Over several years, the (in)justice system has been crafted to ensure that “good” people are protected from the law. That protected species is made up of criminal masterminds, the well-connected, murderous generals, coup-makers, police, army, the wealthy, and more.

In the never-ending saga, dating back to 2012, of getting the wealthy Vorayuth “Boss” Yoovidhya off all charges associated with his murder of a lowly policeman, The Nation reports that. as expected, the “cocaine use charge against … [the fugitive is] nearing the end of its statute of limitations.”

An AFP photo clipped from ChannelNews Asia

The office on Wednesday released a statement on the results of the year 2021 and the direction of proactive action in 2022.

That will leave one charge: “rash driving causing the death of another person…”.

The only question now is how the corrupt (in)justice system can make that one go away. In the meantime, there’s stalling, delays and so on that mean justice is dead and those responsible for that death have probably become wealthier.

Meanwhile, to add emphasis to the death of justice, the Bangkok Post reports that an Appeals Court “upheld a Civil Court ruling dismissing a lawsuit filed against the army for compensation over the death of Lahu human rights activist Chaiyaphum Pasae, who was shot dead at a checkpoint in Chiang Mai province in 2017.”

The “court ruled to dismiss the lawsuit and said the army has no need to pay compensation to Chaiyaphum’s family. The court considered the M16 rifle that a soldier shot Chaiyaphum with was used in self-defence and out of necessity.”

This relates to a case where “officers claimed they found drugs in Chaiyaphum’s car and had to shoot him because he resisted their search and tried to throw a grenade at them.” Of course, witnesses had a different story, saying “Chaiyaphum was dragged out of the car, beaten and shot.” And, the CCTV footage of the military’s actions was taken away by Army bosses and never provided to any court. That’s because the military is more powerful than the courts, enjoys almost complete impunity for its crimes, and has the power to murder civilians as it sees fit.

Of course, occasionally a court does its work properly, but these occasions are surprises rather than the norm. Wither the justice system.

A pandemic of political repression

Forget the thousands of ill people. What’s important, for the regime and its cops, is charging every political opponent.

The  Bangkok Post reports that Metropolitan Police Bureau (MPB) is on the hunt for “nine groups … facing prosecution for staging protests and ‘car mob’ rallies in defiance of the emergency law this month.” By “emergency law” it means the emergency decree, which in various forms and guises, has been operating almost continuously since the 2014 military coup.

The nine groups are:

the United Front of Thammasat and Demonstration which held a rally on July 2; the Thai Mai Thon protests on July 3, 10, 11; the Prachachon Khon Thai rallies on July 3 and 10; the car mob rallies organised by red-shirt activist Sombat Boonngamanong on July 3 and 10…. The others are the Mok Luang Rim Nam group rally on July 3; the Bangkok Sandbox protest on July 6; the rally led by vocational students on July 9; the Free Youth gathering on July 18; and the protests engineered by the Mu Ban Thalufa on July 22 and 24…. [and] the …”Harley motorbike mob” on July 23 and 25.”

Pol Maj Gen Piya Tawichai, the MPB deputy commissioner, said a total of “172 protesters are facing charges under the decree in connection with protests in Bangkok.” But it isn’t just the emergency decree, with the protesters facing dozens of charges.

It seems the police have nothing better to do than to do legal battle with protestors.

The police are engaging in a myriad of legal contortions. For example, they have suddenly decided that honking horns is illegal. Really? In Bangkok? Yep, they reckon that “vehicles honked their horns, disturbing people nearby and other motorists. The rally participants are also accused of causing heavy traffic congestion.” Yes, again, that’s in Bangkok.

They are brazen in their twisting of law and spreading the virus of injustice in a pandemic of political repression.

 

Masters of repression I

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights have published their June update. It makes for sorry reading, from using the virus emergency decree for political repression to the use of lese majeste against political activists.

According to the TLHR “at least 695 people in 374 cases have already been affected as a result of their political involvement and opinions since the ‘Free Youth’ rally on 18 July 2020 until the end of June 2021.” This includes “43 youths of under 18 years old…”.

In total, lese majeste charges have now been laid against more than 100 people.

Contempt of court and insulting the court cases case have grown. For the former, there have been at least 18 people in 14 cases “for participating in assemblies criticizing the judiciary since the Free Youth Rally until the end of May 2021.” Strikingly, “the Court can conduct a contempt trial and pass a judgment directly bypassing the investigation or prosecution process.”

TLHR also reports that the courts have routinely “imposed overly strict measures in courtrooms, including limiting the number of audience or requiring a preapproved permission. In all trials, the Court forbade notetaking claiming it was to keep order.” Such measures “were likely to undermine the principle of a free and fair trial.”

In addition to court and judicial processes, TLHR states that “[s]tate authorities continuously monitor and harass people who posted monarchy-related content and political activists…”. In June alone, the “authorities approached least 18 citizens who expressed monarchy-related or political opinions at their homes. These incidents occurred in all of the regions of the country…”.

TLHR also found that “at least 511 people in 162 cases had been accused of breaching the Emergency Decree provisions…”.

The regime may not be very good at virus mitigation, but it is highly skilled in acts of political repression.

Trampling legal rights

Our readers will know that the royalist courts have, for some time, abandoned most pretenses of so-called blind justice, observing the constitution, or even following the law as it is written. But the (in)justice system extends further than the courts.

A recent statement by Thai Lawyers for Human Rights discusses breaches of confidential attorney-client by the Department of Corrections.

On 16 June 2021, Parit Chiwarak “raised his concern regarding the practice of eavesdropping on confidential attorney-client conversations in prison and proposed that … [a Parliamentary] Committee launches an inspection on the Department of Corrections’ conduct.”

Immediately, Corrections Department director-general Ayut Sinthoppan responded that:

Section 9(5) of the Rules of the Department of Corrections on Visit, Contact with Prisoners, and Study Visit to or Contact with Prison, B.E. 2561 (2018) clearly prescribes that an external party authorized to visit or contact prisoners must consent to have prison officials listen to their conversations, take photos and audio recordings, cut off communication if the conversation is considered inappropriate.

He added that “if a lawyer wants to keep the conversation with a prisoner confidential, they must inform a prison official.”

TLHR considered this statement as “an admission that the prison has been using its authority under the Department of Corrections’ rules to eavesdrop and record most conversations between attorneys and their clients in prison” and that “confidentiality is only occasionally permitted as a rare exception.”

TLHR observed that this is a serious “violation of the right to access counsel per Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),” to which Thailand is a State Party and has obligations to comply with the ICCPR’s provisions. Furthermore, it contradicts Section 7/1(1) of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code, which guarantees the rights of the arrested and suspects in detention or imprisonment to meet and consult with their lawyer tête-à-tête.

In addition, Article 61 of the Corrections Act B.E. 2560 (2017) states, “The prison shall arrange a place for prisoners to have a tête-à-tête meeting and consultation with their lawyer or persons to be appointed as their lawyer as specified in the rules of the Department of Corrections.” This provision ensures the right to meet a lawyer confidentially without imposing any restrictions on such a right.

Furthermore, the Rules of the Department of Corrections on Visit, Contact with Prisoners, and Study Visit to or Contact with Prison, B.E. 2561 (2018), which is a subordinate law, provide separate rules for external parties and lawyers. Section 9 in Part 1 allows the Department of Corrections to record the conversations between the external parties and prisoners. In contrast, Part 2 did not grant the same power in the case of attorney-prisoner communications. Section 19 states that the rules in Part 1 could be enforced mutatis mutandis. Nonetheless, it is still illegal to record attorney-prisoner conversations because that rule violates Article 61 of the Corrections Act B.E. 2560 (2017), whose status is higher than the Department of Corrections’ Rules in the legal hierarchy.

“Eavesdropping on attorney-client conversations does not only violate the right to fair trial and Article 61 of the Corrections Act B.E. 2560 (2017). It also seriously jeopardizes the entire justice system. The statement from the Director-General of the Department of Corrections, which cited Rules of the Department of Corrections on Visit, Contact with Prisoners, and Study Visit to or Contact with Prison, B.E. 2561 (2018), is unacceptable. The right to have confidential access to a lawyer is a fundamental principle of criminal law, which could not be precluded as an exception under any Rules. It also should not be the lawyer’s duty to request for the guarantee of this right.

Therefore, TLHR calls for the Minister of Justice, Lawyers Council of Thailand, National Human Rights Commission, and other relevant agencies to investigate this matter and take steps to amend the said Rules because any persons facing a charge must be entitled to their right to consult with their lawyer confidentially. If the justice system could not guarantee this right, such a failure could adversely impact their ability to fight the lawsuit, hindering their full ability to defend themselves in court effectively,” said Yaowalak Anupan, Chief of TLHR.

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights

18 June 2021

Still on the lam

The 2012 hit-and-run case involving tycoon scion Vorayuth “Boss” Yoovidhya of Red Bull fame, when he killed a policeman while driving his luxury sports car while intoxicated is back in the news.

The Bangkok Post recently reported that, after all these years, the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) is considering whether it might “launch an inquiry against at least 10 people for their alleged role in delaying justice…”. That means those officials who helped Boss and his associates tamper with witnesses and smooth his escape from the country to enjoy the high life on the lam.

It is not the NACC that has been investigating. According to spokesman Niwatchai Kasemmongkol it is the findings of an:

independent panel headed by former NACC member Vicha Mahakun [that] indicated a number of people, including several police officers and public prosecutors, played a big role in getting prosecutors to drop criminal charges against Mr Vorayuth.

That report was “taken up by a NACC sub-committee, which in turn recommended the NACC to launch a more detailed investigation into individuals which the Vicha panel believed had intentionally acted to derail the justice process.”

That’s the report. Will it do anything? Or is it just another stalling tactic? After all, as everyone knows, Vorayuth and his lawyers repeatedly postponed his court appearances before he fled abroad.

An AFP photo clipped from ChannelNews Asia

While Vorayuth was on the lam, “a speeding charge against him was dropped after its one-year statute of limitations expired in 2013…. Meanwhile, a second charge — failing to stop to help a crash victim — expired on Sept 3, 2017.”

Only a cocaine use charge and a reckless driving causing death charges remain. The former expires in September 2022 and the latter in 2027. Previously, the Office of the Attorney General had recommended dropping the reckless driving charge. It was the public outcry over that that saw Vicha’s panel put together.

Somehow, we feel that justice will never be served. In Thailand, for the rich, justice and injustice are commodities.