Case

29 December 2010.  The court of first instance dismissed the charges since the case did not constitute an offence.  The court considered the plaintiff’s charge that the defendant defamed her by the use of forged or false information under Section 14 (1) of the Computer-Related Crime Act.  If the document posted and disseminated on the website was not amended, it cannot be called false.  If the plaintiff believes that the statement in the document is false information, it is a matter for the plaintiff to take up with the person who produced the document.  The plaintiff has been unable to prove whether the statement in the document is false or not.

The following details are extracted from the verdict.
The plaintiff charged that the defendant is the owner of the website and has the duty to control, supervise and examine.  He consented to the posting of a statement on his website in the knowledge that the statement was false.  But the defendant neglected to remove the statement that defamed the plaintiff from the defendant’s website.  The defendant therefore jointly defamed the plaintiff through propagating and intentionally supporting or consenting to the inputting of false information causing damage to the plaintiff into a computer system.  Punishment was requested under Sections 83, 90, 326, and 328 of the Criminal Code and Sections 14 and 15 of the Computer-Related Crime Act and the defendant was requested to publish the entire verdict in the newspapers and announce it on television for 10 consecutive days and the closure of the defendant’s website was requested.

The plaintiff reported the complaint at Hua Mak Police Station and had the plaintiff’s lawyer present a letter notifying the defendant, the owner of the pantown.com, to remove a statement defaming the plaintiff from his website.  The defendant received the letter of notification from the plaintiff’s lawyer on 14 June 2009 and removed one page but there still remained 1 page on the website that contained a statement defaming the plaintiff which the defendant refused to remove.  The plaintiff’s lawyer therefore again presented a notification to the defendant by e-mail attachment but the defendant persisted in neglecting to remove the statement defaming the plaintiff from his website until an arbitration meeting on 1 October 2009.  After this date, the defendant proceeded to remove the statement from his website.  Therefore, given that the defendant as the owner of the pantown.com website consented to the posting of a false statement on his website and neglected to remove the statement from the website from 30 October 2008 to 1 October 2009, a period of 11 months, it is therefore held that the defendant had the intention, jointly with an individual whose name is unknown, to defame the plaintiff and committed the offence in the status of supporting and consenting to the inputting of false information into a computer system.

The court investigated the basis of the charges and believed that this case had a basis for accusations only under Sections 14 and 15 of the 2007 Computer-Related Crime Act and accepted these charges.  The other charges were dropped.

The defendant pleaded not guilty.

The evidence of the defendant established that the defendant opened the website for a general individual to request the opening of a webboard under the website.  The person requesting the opening of a webboard is called the supervisor.  The defendant only has the duty to examine that the supervisor provides a correct national identity card and accepts the established conditions.  The supervisor has the duty to supervise the website so that content is within the law. The defendant does not have the duty himself to remove statements that are an offence under law and the removal of statements must use the personal e-mail and a password specifically belonging to the supervisor.

In this case, when the defendant learned of the matter from the plaintiff, he contacted the supervisor but was unable to do so.  The defendant therefore closed the website of the supervisor 2 days after receiving a letter from the plaintiff.  The statement in the charge was therefore immediately removed.  In addition, a statement appearing in a website where the defendant was the supervisor was deleted by the defendant 4 days after being notified by the plaintiff.  The removal was not immediate because of a public holiday.  The claim by the plaintiff that the defendant allowed the posting of a statement on the website for 11 months is therefore not the truth.

Mr Akharawat Thep-hasadin na Ayuthaya, qualified member of the Legal Drafting Committee of the Office of the Council of State, in his capacity as an examiner and drafter of the 2007 Computer-Related Crime Act and a commissioner of the National Legislative Assembly, testified as a defence witness that when a statement is inputted into a computer system, if there is an original document and this original copy is posted on a webboard, it cannot be held that the information in this document is false.  If he plaintiff believes that a statement in this document is false information, this is a matter that the plaintiff must take up with the person who produced the document, and the plaintiff cannot prove that the statement in the document is false or not.

The court after consideration believed that an offence under Section 14 (1) must involve inputting forged computer information or false computer information into a computer system.  Forged computer information means computer information that has been changed, no matter whether that change is of the whole or in part.  False computer information means information which is not true.

Also, the offender must have the intention to commit the offence, that is, the offender must have the intention to input into a computer system and at the same time the perpetrator must know the facts in the elements of the offence that it is forged computer information or false information and must know that this act is an act which is likely to cause damage to others or the public.

In this case, when a comparison is made of the document in the charge and the statement of Mrs R who is the person who produced the document, it is seen that there is no change.  In that someone inputted the document in the charge into the website, it is not forged information or false information.  The expert witness testimony confirms that a statement that is inputted into a computer system, if there is an original document and the original copy is inputted into a website, cannot be held to be false.  The plaintiff may believe that the statement in this document is false information but this is a matter that the plaintiff must take up with Mrs R who produced the document.  The plaintiff therefore cannot prove that the statement in the document in the charge is false or not.  The case therefore does not constitute an offence.

Verdict: case dismissed

27 April 2011 The plaintiff appealed