Case

17 November 2009 The attorney postponed the appointment to inform the decision to prosecute Sondhi because Sondhi has sent a letter asking for justice to Chulasingh Vasantasingh, the Attorney-General, and there has been no further command. Hence, the attorney postponed the appointment

 to 23 December 2009.

3 March 2010 Mr. Kayasith Pitsawongprakarn, the Director-General of the Criminal Case Division, has sent a letter requiring the inquiry officers at the Dusit Police Station to summon Sondhi Limthongkul to the court. The summon order required Sondhi to see inquiry officers on the past 1 March but due to public holiday, the Director-General gave the order to postpone it to 2 April 2010

2 April 2010 The Office of Attorney-General ordered Sondhi Limthongkul to report himself to receive the prosecution order. The attorney postponed the appointment with the explanation about the letter sent to Mr.Chulasingh Vasantasingh, the attorney-general, and requested an interrogation of another witness, which was Mr. Jermsak Pintong, in a new point not in the accusation. The Office of Attorney General, then, decided to postpone it for another month. However, the attorney would consider if this request was intended to delay the process. In that case, the attorney would request an arrest warrant from the inquiry officers.

5 July 2010 Sondhi went to acknowledge the accusation under the section 112 of the Criminal Code. Mr.Suwat Apayapakdi, his attorney, requested for bail with the amount of 300,000 Baht. Regarding the letter to the Attorney-General asking to hear one more witness before bringing the case to the court, the Attorney-General saw that it was not necessary because all facts were already included in the case file. As for the defendant’s claim that the intention was absent, he would need to clarify it in front of the court himself.

16 August 2010  The court appointment to examine the witnesses and evidences

1 November 2011 The hearing date for prosecutor's witness. The witness was absent.

2,8,9,15,16,29,30 November and 7,8 December 2011
Hearing dates for both prosecutor's and defendant's witnesses but canceled and postponed to July and August 2012

10,11,12,13,25 July 2012
Hearing dates for prosecutor's witnesses

21 August 2012
The hearing of witness no.1 Mr.Sondhi Limthongkul testified for himself. He admitted that he has made the statement according to the accusation but with the intention to protect, not to undermine the monarchy. Also, the vision of the PAD has always been to protect and glorify the monarchy. He [the defendant] used Daranee's statement to increase pressure to prosecute her because she has committed the crime repeatedly but no action was done by the authorities. The day after his speech, the army has brought this to the police.

Sondhi said that this case was a political harassment done by the opponents of the PAD. The three prosecutor's witnesses accused him because they are from the opposite side of the political spectrum or have had previous conflicts with him.

28 August 2012
The hearing of the witness no.2 Maj. Gen. Jumlong Srimuang, a PAD leader. He testified that the PAD rally aimed to protect and conserve the institution of Nation, Religion, Monarchy and Consitutional Monarchy system. In every rally, the song “Candle of Dharma”, whose key parts are translated as “..will be territory guard, protecting the king with life” , was sung. Through the whole period of the rally, there has been no offensive statement and the defendant would not tolerate such actions because he considered it a serious matter. If Sondhi was that kind of person, the witness would not maintain the friendship with him.

Maj. Gen. Jumlong further testified that because the police officers had not prosecuted Daranee, who made insulting statements with vulgar words on the stage on Sanam Luang from January to June and 18-19 July 2008 in total of 5 times, and at that time many other similar statements were found widely on the internet and articles, Sondhi felt obliged to verbally put pressure to the authorities. Sondhi's speech on the stage was a summary of Daranee's statement of merely 5 lines in order to inform the audience and to notify the police officers without any further explanation or clarification. After Sondhi finished his speech, the witness agreed that it would yield benefits and accelerate the process. If no legal action was done, possibly Daranee would repeat her act again.  Furthermore, he also saw that the police officers and attorneys treated the PAD unequally as the other Lese Majeste cases, for example that of Pol.Lt.Col. Thaksin Shinawatra, the former Prime Minister, Mr. Jatuporn Prompan, UDD leader, Mr.Jakkrapob Penkhae including Mr.Chotisak Onsoong case, who did not stand up at the royal antheme, were dismissed.

The hearing of the witness no.3 Mr.Panthep Puapongpan, the spokeperson of PAD. He testified that the intention of the defendant's speech was to increase pressure on the police to prosecute Daranee, who has repeatedly made insulting statements on the stage on Sanam Luang without any actions done against her. Only until Sondhi has informed the audience, the case was reported to the police for prosecution and later, the court gave her an imprisonment sentence. It showed that Sondhi did not intend to offend the Monarchy because the audience did not follow or agree with Daranee. On the contrary, they felt upset about it. Also, during the speech, Sondhi has condemned Daranee, which signified a different perspective.

Panthep further testified that during Sondhi's speech, it was during Samak Sundaravej's government, who has got elected because he was close to Thaksin Shinawatra, and there was a widespread of insulting actions in forms of speech and websites, which was ignored by the authorities.

The hearing date of witness no.4 Lt. Gen. Nantadet Meksawas, Intelligence Officer. He said that he was responsible for news related to the monarchy and he has been following the defendant. The information he has found was that the defendant was certainly a royalist person. Hence, the speech that he made should not have aimed to offend the monarchy. He has received 2-3 reports of Daranee’s insulting statements and other similar cases. However, when he made inquiries to the responsible units, he got responses that no action was done yet. Only after Sondhi’s speech on the stage, the army reported it to the police.

The hearing of witness no.5 Mr.Prapan Koonmee, Lawyer and PAD alliance. He testified that ever since he has participated in activities with the defendant, there has never been a time that defendant has offended the king. All of the activities demonstrated a strong determination to protect the monarchy. The speech made by the defendant and Daranee were different. While Daranee’s speech was considered insulting and malicious, that of the defendant would be perceived by any reasonable mind as decent.

Prapan also added that in this case, a petition was submitted to the King. However, unlike other cases, this case was not considered the Office of Attorney General to drop because after only a few days the prosecutors had received the case, this case was preceded immediately without delay. Once the case was at the attorney level, the palace could not interfere anymore.

29 August 2012

The hearing of witness no.6 Mr.Kumnoon Sittisaman, Senator. He testified that the defendant’s speech was not deemed to breach the section 112 but to urge the authorities to use the said law to punish Daranee, whose statements had insulted the Monarchy. If no actions were done against her, it would mean that the law was inefficient.

Mr.Kumnoon testified that after Sondhi’s case was filed by the inquiry officers, he was the one who used his position as Senator to bail him out at the Metropolitan Police Bureau. In addition, between 2005-2006 many websites were found offensive, the defendant tried to urge the authorities to act both on television programs and rally stages.

The hearing of witness no.7 Mr.Jinda Pradabpanyawut, the father of Ms.Angkana Pradabpanyawut or Nong Bow, a victim of the 7 October 2008 incident. He testified that his family participated in the political rallies of PAD because of their love for the King, the Constitution and the righteousness. When the protest crackdown occurred in front of the parliament, Ms.Angkana, the eldest daughter, got shot with tear gas bullets on the side of her body and later died at Ramathibodhi hospital. In the meanwhile, his wife was severely injured. Her foot toes got ripped off and there were wounds on both of her legs. She was now receiving medical treatment at Siriraj hospital her majesty’s patronage.

The hearing of witness no. 8 Dr.Anan Laolertvorakul, linguist and lecturer at the Department of Arts, Chulalongkorn University. He testified that after reading the script of Sondhi’s speech, it could be analyzed that the speaker’s intention was to communicate with the people through Daranee’s verbal statements so they could see her insulting behavior, which was one of the factors to the nation’s political turmoil. It was not a direct quotation, but to describe and portray the facts perceived by the speaker.

26 September 2012
The verdict hearing date

The summary of the verdict is described as follow. The court began reading the verdict at about 11:50. It was found that the defendant had cited Daranee Charncherngsilpakul's statement in his speech at the PAD stage and broadcasted it live through ASTV channel and on internet. Give that in that period there was a widespread of websites attacking the Monarchy, an examination was needed to see if the defendant has committed the offenses according to the accusation or not.

The defendant's speech was not considered as citing Daranee Charncherngsilpakul's statement because the defendant himself had clarified in his testimony that he was aware of who Daranee's statement was addressing to, even though the names were not mentioned in it. Besides, many high-ranked police officers have confirmed that the intention of the speech was to call for prosecuting Daranee.

Meanwhile, Dr. Anan Laolertveerakul, a linguist, testified that the defendant intended to inform about Daranee's wrongful action. Therefore, even though the defendant's words might be considered offensive, any reasonable men would not understand it as such. In addition, Lt. Gen. Nantadet Meksawas, who is involved in intelligence work, insisted that on the date of the incidence, the defendant urged the authority to punish Daranee, who has repeatedly committed the act.

Hence, the defendant's act did not have the intention of crime indicated by the accusation. The court dismissed the case.

19 November 2012

The prosecutor submit an appeal before the appeal court