Case

Case name

Pattani banner

Lèse-majesté

Name of persons / Name of Media

undisclosed

Status of Accused

On bail

Offense / order

Article 112 Criminal Code

Summary

The defendant was accused together with an unknown number of others on 12 August 2009 of putting up banners, on which violent situations from the deep south were described, next to the portraits of the queen on a flyover. The action was regarded as an insult to the queen which brought damages to her reputation and honour.

Basic information

Background of accused

The defendant in this case is from Pattani and is a Thai of Malay descent. He works for general hire and his status is poor. The defendant can communicate in central Thai but not fluently. He has no previous history of participating in any activist group, movement or political activities.

Complainant / Plaintiff

The complaint was filed by the Pattani Provincial Public Prosecutor.

Legal Claims

Lèse-majesté

Form of restriction on freedom

Charge filed, Threats by police / military
Type of media

Other
Province

Pattani
Black case

คำอธิบายคดีดำ ภาษาอังกฤษ

No: อ.2853/2554 Date: 2011-12-09

Details of offence according to charge

The defendant was charged that on 12 August 2009, with other unknown persons, he placed 2 cloth banners, containing statements about violent incidents in the three southernmost provinces and other conflicts in the country together with portraits of HM the Queen, on a pedestrian bridge. This action defames the Queen to third parties by damaging her reputation and subjected her to insult and loathing.

There are also a lot of banners on that day but they were removed in a short time.

Circumstance of arrest

The defendant was once summoned by the village head to meet a military officer in a security-related case before his detention this time. At that time the military officer collected the defendant’s DNA from his cheek as evidence and he was released.

At the end of August 2009, the village head again summoned the defendant to meet a military officer. This time the military officer informed the defendant that he had committed an offence, but did not say what and there was no explanation of the charge. He was detained and investigated under the powers of the special security law in the three southernmost provinces. The defendant in this case claims he was tortured to obtain a confession by being kicked, punched and hit with a bag of ice until he confessed but he was not told to what charge he was to confess and there were threats that if he did not confess he would be subject to more severe ill-treatment. He decided to confess at the investigation stage. After obtaining the confession, the military officer then informed him of the offence for which he was being investigated.

After confessing, the defendant submitted a request for bail using a land title of a relative as guarantee and was granted bail.

Progress of case

9 December 2011: The Pattani Provincial Public Prosecutor filed charges in Pattani Provincial Court.

21 March 2012: Preparatory hearing.

Defence lawyers from Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF) and Human Rights Lawyers Association (HRLA) requested a postponement of the preparatory hearing because they had just been appointed to this case and had not had enough time to prepare. The court allowed postponement of the preparatory hearing to 25 July 2012.

25 July 2012: The prosecutor requested postponement of the case, as there were up to 114 witnesses of which 109 were oral witnesses. It was impossible to prepare in time. The court therefore postponed the preparatory hearing to 28 May 2012 and the hearing dates would be set on that day.

28 May 2012: The defendant announced to the court that he wished to remove the original lawyers from the Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF) and Human Rights Lawyers Association (HRLA), which are non-governmental human rights organizations that have been monitoring legal cases in the three southernmost provinces. He appointed a private lawyer in the area to be responsible for this case in their place. The new lawyer requested a postponement from the court since he had just been appointed as lawyer in this case and had not had time to prepare. The court granted another postponement of the hearing to schedule testimony.

Additional Information

The defendant in this case was under pressure because this case concerns the monarchy. Additionally, there is also pressure from the insurgency in the three southernmost provinces. The situation in the area where state officials have full powers under the Martial Law Act 1914 and the Emergency Decree on Public Administration in Emergency Situations to detain any person, and detention can last for many weeks. This causes great fear in the defendant who does not wish to reveal his name. The documentation center therefore cannot publicize his given name and surname.

Skip to Top

Case

Summary

Primary links