Case

On 19 October 2009 the defendant was judged to have violated Article 112 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to three years in prison. The defendant cooperated and plead guilty. According to Article 78 of the penal code, her sentence was reduced by half to one year and six months.

According to investigation reports, doctors from Srithanya hospital and Trang hospital who were the defendant’s psychiatrists were called to the police station. Both of them testified that the defendant had Schizophrenia and that the defendant had been paranoid and emotionally unstable. The psychiatrists also testified that the defendant’s symptoms started in April 2004.

Duangta Kraipatpong, a psychiatrist at the Galya Rajanakarindra Institute commented that surroundings did not stimulate the symptoms. It was rather the defendant herself that stimulated them. The cinema or the Royal Anthem were not stimuli for the defendant’s symptoms. They rather happened independent of location because the defendant could not places.

The court saw that the doctors’ opinions could not indicate that the defendant’s actions were due to her symptoms. However they showed that the defendant was mentally unstable to some degree. The court could include this fact in the process of finding a verdict. The court also did not find any indication in the defendant’s testimony that she would show any more disloyalty to the Monarchy. Considering the defendant’s records, intellect, health, and mental health, the court decided to give her a suspended sentence of two years. The sentence included a condition that the defendant would report to the Probation Service once every two months for a year so that probation officers could provide help and support if necessary. The defendant was also required to with haste seek therapy for mental conditions from a public healthcare institution for one year or as long as required. Her progress of the therapy needed to be presented to the Probation Service occasionally.