- iLaw Website
- Documentation Center
Case
Stared
Case name
Surapak: The Facebook "เราจะครองxxx"
Lèse-majesté
Name of persons / Name of Media
Surapak
Case status
คำอธิบายสถานะคดี ภาษาอังกฤษ
Judgment / End of trial
Status of Accused
Dismissed
Offense / order
Article 14 (3) Computer Related Crime Act, Article 112 Criminal Code
Summary
Surapak P. was accused of being an owner of a facebook page named "I will rule xxxx" and writing texts defaming, insulting the King on facebook according to Lese Majeste law. He was denied the right to bail before the Criminal Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed the case because the Plaintiff's evidences were not enough to prove his guilt.
Surapak denied all charges given that he was slandered. While the prosecuted submitted computer evidences including Facebook cache to identify the identity of the defendant, Surapak can showed the court that those evidences were fraud and Facebook set its system with no cache file.
This is the only case, in the documentation centre, that the defendant argued his case with computer evidences and the case was dismissed.
Basic information
Background of accused
Surapak was a computer programmer and owned a private company offering software programming services to various offices
Chief inquiry officer: Pol Lt Col Narong Manmuan, Technology Crime Suppression Division
Platiff : Public prosecutors, Office of Special Litigation 6, Office of the Attorney General (OAG)
Legal Claims
Lèse-majesté
-
Form of restriction on freedom
Charge filed
-
Type of media
Social Network
-
Province
Bangkok
-
Court
Criminal Court
-
Black case
คำอธิบายคดีดำ ภาษาอังกฤษ
No: อ.4857/2554 Date: 2008-11-25No: 1775/2556 -
Red case
คำอธิบายดคีแดง ภาษาอังกฤษ
No: อ.4008/2555 Date: 2013-01-25No: 21981/2556 Date: 2013-11-04 -
Arrest warrant
1408/2554 on 2011-09-02
Details of offence according to charge
According to the Criminal Court’s database accessed on 4 May 2011, on 16 August 2011, Mr. Surapak was accused of being owner of email dorkao@hotmail.com and facebook page “I shall reign the country with xxx” and having written facebook messages that were considered defaming, insulting and threatening the King.
According to our trial observation, the case happened when a student who was a member of a Google email group has inputted into facebook search e an email, dorkao@hotmail.com, and the result has led him to a facebook account titled “I shall reign the country with xxx”. Thus he assumed that owner of the email is also the creator of the facebook account and went to report the case to the police.
Meanwhile, the Technology Crime Suppression Division received a lead from a person called “Manachai” via some posting in the TCSD’s website. Manachai insisted that Suprapak P. has created the account and even supplied the police private information about Suprapak including his name and last name, and address.
Later, the police stormed Surapak’s house and took his computer for forensic investigation. The police claimed to have found traces showing Surapak used the computer to log in as owner of the facebook account.
Circumstance of arrest
The accused was arrested on 2 September 2011, around 13.30. Led by Pol Col Pisit Paoin, Deputy Commander of the Technology Crime Suppression Division, the police went with a search warrant no. 233/2554 to search the room no. 202, Maneeya Mansion, Lat Prao 122, Wang Thong Lang, Bangkok.
As the accused was present during the search, he led the officers to search his place. Evidence seized during the search included computer notebook (1), air card (1), Truemove sim cards (2), One2Call sim card (1), 52 CDs in the containber, modem router (1), and electronic circuit (1).
The accused has been denying all charges during the arrest and inquiry.
Progress of case
3 September 2011 Surapak was arrested in his home office. He was then held in custody at the Bangkok Remand Prison and has been there while his applications for bail have been rejected.
25 November 2011 Case admitted by the Criminal Court
30 January 2012 Pre-hearing conference to review evidence and the accused submitted his testimony denying all allegations and proposed a list of three witnesses
24 February 2012 The accused placed collateral prepared by the Rights and Liberties Protection Department to ask for temporary release citing the reason that the Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand (TRCT) had proposed to the government that any accused in politically related cases should be granted bail. The surety worth 1,440,000 baht and his elder brother and elder sister placed their official positions as collateral, but the Court refused to grant him bail.
18-20 September 2012 Prosecution witness examination
21 September 2012 Defence witness examination
31 October 2012 Verdict to be delivered
The accused was acquitted given the benefits of the doubt as the prosecuting evidence has failed to convince the Court of his committing the offence. From available history of emailing and facebook use on that day, nothing indicates that the accused used the computer to post the message on that day as alleged. Source code of the files found in the computer seized as evidence shows the files were not stored in the folder they were supposed to and the files found were not temporary files automatically generated while surfing the internet. The files had been made up and simply saved in the computer seized. In addition, it was found that the computer seized was turned on while the accused were held in custody by the police officers and while his computer was also kept by the officers. Therefore, the files and information proposed to attest to the use of the computer were flawed and affect their credibility.
25 January 2013 The Prosecuter submitted the appeal.
26 March 2014
9.30 am, at the courtroom No. 911, Criminal Court on Ratchadapisek Road, The Court of Appeal announced the verdict to acquit of Surapak since the court has found that the evidences from the prosecutor were questionable and that could be an imputation of the defendant, and as well those could not prove beyond the reasonable doubt that the defendant has committed a crime, so the court had to give a benefit of doubt to the defendant.
The Court of Appeal Court also stated that the case relating to the royal institution is very significant and sensitive. The defendant in this case will be y punished not only legally but also socially. So the consideration of evidences should be carefully done.
To punish the defendant without the credible evidences is not only injustice for the defendant himself but also the cause of social conflicts.
Aside from the reaffirming of the verdict from the Court of First Instance, the Court of Appeal also ordered to return the seized computer to the defendant. This point was not specified in the verdict of the Court of First Instance.
After receiving the verdict, Surapak gave an interview to the reporters waiting for him at the court. Surapak hoped that the verdict of this case may constitute a good standard on hearings of the case related to the computer evidences.
Trial observation record
On 31 October 2012, at Court Room no. 804, the Criminal Court
The Court was supposed to deliver a verdict in front of about 30 attendants. Around 9.50 am, the Court started to read out the verdict regarding the “Facebook Case” and its abridged version appears as the following (paragraphs made by iLaw).
"After investigation, it was found that according to the prosecuting evidence, the accused was not the owner of dorkao@hotmail.com and facebook password to the Facebook “I shall reign the country with xxx” (name withheld by iLaw) as per the data registered with the service provider. In addition, it was heard by the Court that the password written by the accused and given to the police officers was for accessing his notebook computer. The same password was used for his email address and facebook account, surapach_pxxx@hotmail.com and xxx (name withheld by iLaw). It is normal that an owner of the accounts keep secret the password to either his email or facebook account to prevent others’ access to his or her information. However, it appeared that after the accused had been arrested and held in custody, someone else continued to access and used the email dorkao@hotmail.com.
That the prosecutors claims that if a password to an email address used for opening a facebook account is found in a person’s notebook computer, it means the person who owns the computer is also the owner of the facebook account is simply what the prosecutors perceived. No other evidence could be cited to support such a claim. As per the examination of the folders containing history files of email usage, InboxLight[2].htm, which indicates the email dorkao@hotmail.com, and history of previous usage of facebook, home[1].htm, which indicates the profile of "I shall reign the country with xxx”, two history files were found in the accused’s notebook computer, including one file indicating the usage of the email and facebook account on 2 January 2011 and another on 8 January 2011, respectively. The period of time of the history files were several months older than the time during which the accused was alleged to have posting the offensive message. If the accused had used his computer to post the message as alleged, there should have been some historical trace left showing the particular period of time. But none of such files were found and the files found fail to establish the link between the email address dorkao@hotmail.com and the owner of the facebook “I shall reign the country with xxx”.
In addition, the temporary files found could have been copied from another computer in less than one second. In this regard, the accused argued that the temporary files found and their source code were not located in their normal folders and the files were not generated automatically while one surfing the internet. They were simply made up and were saved in the computer seized. There is also abnormality of the timestamp of the files. During the adduction of evidence, the accused showed how the files could have been copied into his computer, and it could be done as he suggested.
Examining the forensic investigation report of his notebook computer, several abnormalities could be found as proposed by the accused. Since such data could have been doctored and modified easily, in order to weigh the evidence regarding the use of computer, an emphasis has to be given to comprehensively examining the credibility of how the files are created and stored as well as the authenticity of the files. It also covers how such data can be analyzed to identify or indicate the sender of the data and other relevant circumstances. In particular, it should be examined as to how the computer has been kept since it contains the authentic data. When a computer is turned on, some changes can be automatically generated and the data can be easily subjected to modification or alteration. But it appears that after the accused was held in custody and his notebook computer seized by the officers, someone turned the computer on on 2 September 2011 at 20.13.44 and on 7 September 2011 at 21.12.07, prior to the day the computer was supposed to be handed to Major Niti for forensic examination. It shows how vulnerable the computer’s data to have been altered. Therefore, the data that has been found in the computer was flawed and not credible. Thus, it is not convincible that the history files regarding the use of dorkao@hotmail.com and the facebook “I shall reign the country with xxx” were automatically generated by the computer owned by the accused.
As the prosecuting evidence is doubtful and fails to affirm if the accused had commited such an offence as alleged, given the benefit of the doubt, the accused shall be acquitted as per Section 227(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Case dismissed"
