Case

Summary of a verdict of the Court of the First Instance

The case’s issue is to consider whether the defendant committed the offence as accused of. 

This is because the King is positioned as head of state, and is respectfully worshiped. Therefore, there is a law to protect the royal institution – which is the head of state, as same as other civilized nations. The legislation includes protecting the King from being insulted and offended, according to the Criminal Code, likewise, the protection of civil rights in general.    

The accused issue was that when someone watched news reporting the King in a wheelchair, and said “XXXX”. It was publicly known that the king was ill. The speaker must have intended cursing the King to pass away in due time. It was an offensive remark to the public, who respected the King. Moreover, the remark indicated the speaker’s intention to insult and threaten the King. It was an offence according to the Criminal Code Article 112.     

The issue of writing “XXX” on the CD, and the message read, “stop insulting the king”. The brackets were written between the word “King”. It was an indication or a consideration that the writer intended to use that word in order to relate or to elaborate the word in the brackets. Readers could have understood that the King XXX, was a word for the male gender organ. According to Thai socio-cultural perception, such organ is a bad thing, and it is a bad word. If the word is used to compare another person, then it is used for expressing rudeness, insulting and offending. The comparison of the King and the word was brought to defaming and hatred. The intention was for others to lose faith and to disrespect the King. The action was considered violating the Criminal Code Article 112.      

For this case, the plaintiff has only one eyewitness, Mr. Thanawat, who testified that the defendant committed an offence as he was accused of.  But prior the eyewitness would allege the defendant to inquiry official and testified in the Court, the eyewitness and the defendant violently argued with each other many times. Even knives were nearly used as a weapon to physically harm each other. Later on the defendant reported at Tungsonghong Metro Police Station, and the eyewitness left the house he had rented with the defendant. There was a cause for both to be furiously angry with each other. Examining the eyewitness’s testimony must be considered with extreme precaution.

During the investigation process, the eyewitness testified that a morning of August 2009, 10.00 hrs., while the eyewitness and the defendant were watching a Red Shirt channel on a cable TV station. The defendant brought out a CD, and tried to write the accused message. At the same time, there was news reporting the King on a wheelchair. The defendant then said “XXXX” and tossed the CD to the eyewitness. When the defendant was unaware, the eyewitness hid the CD.  

The aforementioned evidence was different from the witness’s testimony. The defendant wrote an inappropriate message on the CD about 5 days after the defendant said the inappropriate words. At first sight of the CD with the accused message written on, the witness only looked and put it down where it was, without hiding it. More than a month later, Miss Pailin, the witness’s wife, found the CD. Miss Pailin gave the CD to the witness, who then held it. This is the fact that the plaintiff failed to have Miss Pailin to testify.   

Although the witness testified to the Court more than 3 years after providing evidence to the inquiry official, if the testimony was incorrect, it must have been only the details. The evidence, which was the main point, shouldn’t have been differed. If the crime was committed, it was believed that the witness should have been able to recall the sequence. When the plaintiff’s eyewitness testified in the court different from when testified to the inquiry official, then it was suspicious and too weak to be admissible.     

The experts from the Office of Police Forensic Science agreed that the defendant’s handwriting’s quality was similar to the handwriting on the CD, and that both were the same handwriting. Though the technical perspectives from the expert witness could be considerable evidence to the Court, however the Court doesn’t necessary have to believe the expert witness all the time. Whether or not the expert witness was strong, other circumstances and physical evidence must be taken into account. For this case, the message was written with a bold point permanent marker. It was difficult to truly proof how the line patterns were written. Even it was obvious that the qualities of the handwritings were the same, but the message on the CD had a similar quality of the plaintiff’s eyewitness’s handwriting, which was evidenced on the defendant’s evidence. The expert witness’s opinion wasn’t considerable completely.              

The defendant and the defendant’s mother together testified that the defendant was loyal to the royal institution. Therefore, the evidence, which the plaintiff brought to the Court, wasn’t strong enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed an offence as accused of. However the CD, the physical evidence, was used to commit an offence, the Court ordered to dismiss the case, to seize the CD, the exhibit, and to destroy it. 

Summary of a verdict of the Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal agreed with the Court of First Instance, the dismissal of the case. The reason was because the plaintiff’s evidence was weak and doubtful. And the only one eyewitness of the plaintiff previously had arguments with the defendant.