- iLaw Website
- Documentation Center
Case
Stared
Case name
Bandit Aneeya: Opinion sharing at the seminar of the Election Commission
Lèse-majesté
Name of persons / Name of Media
Bandit Aneeya
Case status
คำอธิบายสถานะคดี ภาษาอังกฤษ
Judgment / End of trial
Status of Accused
Sentence suspended
Offense / order
Article 112 Criminal Code
Summary
In September 22, 2003, Bandit A. gave comments and distributed leaflets about his idea in an academic seminar. The Court ruled that his comments and content in the leaflets deemed lese majeste and sentence him to four years in prison. However, because Bandit suffered from schizophrenia, the court suspended the jail term.
Basic information
Background of accused
Bandit Aniya, writer and translator
Police General Wassana Permlap
Legal Claims
Lèse-majesté
-
Form of restriction on freedom
Charge filed
-
Type of media
Print media, Speech
-
Province
Bangkok
-
Court
Bangkok South Criminal Court
-
Black case
คำอธิบายคดีดำ ภาษาอังกฤษ
No: ด.725/2548 -
Red case
คำอธิบายดคีแดง ภาษาอังกฤษ
No: ด.1483/2549
Details of offence according to charge
22 September 2003
During an academic seminar organized by Office of the Election Commission of Thailand and the Constitutional Court of the Kingdom of Thailand, Bandit Aniya expressed his opinion and distributed a written document. His speech was reported to be an insult to the monarchy.
Progress of case
22 September 2003
Office of the Election Commission of Thailand and the Constitutional Court of the Kingdom of Thailand organized an academic seminar under the topic “Political Party Law: Opportunity and Limitation to the Promotion and Development of Political Parties” at Kasatsuk Ballroom, the Twin Towers Hotel. Police General Wassana Permlap was the lecturer. There were approximately 500 attendees including Bandit Aniya, an alias of Small Bandit Aniya (Chu Seng Kwo), a writer and translator aged 63 years old (at the time).
At the seminar, Bandit distributed documents written by him. The title of the documents were : 1.“ Selected Writings for the Nation (sample)” and 2. “Important Speech (draft) at POL.LT.COL Thaksin Shinawatra’s Prime Minister Inauguration" to the people who attended the seminar.
11 December 2003
Police General Wassana Permlap bought a tape recorder containing Bandit’s speech given at the seminar, along with 2 documents to the police, and filed a complaint against Bandit’s action for lese-majeste by his speech and advertisement through distributed documents.
24 November 2004
Police officers arrested Bandit Aniya and afterward filed the complaint against him for violating lese majeste. Bandit plead not guilty though he accepted that he gave the speech and distributed the documents in the seminar.
17 February 2005
At Southern Bangkok Criminal Court, the Prosecutor, office of the Attorney-General (Southern Bangkok Criminal Case Department Special Public Prosecutor Office), was the Plaintiff who filed a case against Mr. Small Bandit Aneeya or Jueseng Saekho, a writer, as defendant.
The complaint identified that at that time of occurrence, according to the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2540 legislated that Thailand was ruled in democratic form of government with the King as Head of State and took a position of the sacrosanct person which cannot be violated. No one can infringe or exercise in antagonistic. Both the state and people had duty to preserve the Royal Institution to be hold with Thailand forever.
On 22 September2003, the Election Commission and the Constitutional Court Office organized an academic seminar at Kasatseuk Ballroom, the Twin Tower Hotel. There were approximately 500 attendees including the defendant using alias as “Small Bandit Aneeya”. On that day, the Defendant had violated several laws as follows:
(A.) The defendant presumptuously advertised his statement via the amplifier in the presence of Police General Wassana Permlap and the attendees in the seminar. The defendant’s speech was meant to commit Lese Majeste. Thus tarnishing the honor of the King and was hated. The intention was to make the public lose faith in the Royal Institution.
(B.) The Defendant presumptuously distributed documents written by him, the first entitled "Selected Writings for the Nation (Sample)" and the second entitled "Important Speech (Draft) at Police Lieutenant Colonel Dr. Thaksin Shinawatra’s Prime Minister Inauguration" and sold to Police General Wassana Permlap and many attendees.
February 2005
After being detained without bail for 98 days, the Court allowed Mr. Bandit for temporarily release on bail for 200,000 Baht.
28 February 2005
On the pre-trial hearings date at Southern Bangkok Criminal Court with the judges, Mr. Surawut Shaowalit, Mrs. Kritsana Shaiwiset, Mr. Pisit Lertshaitham and Mr. Anissara Jaru-on-urai,
Mr. Small Bandit Aneeya or Jueseng Saekho listened to all accusations and pleaded not guilty though he accepted that he gave a speech through the microphone in the presence of attendees in the seminar and duplicated the "Selected Writings for the nation (Sample)" and the second entitled "Important Speech (Draft) at Police Lieutenant Colonel Dr. Thaksin Shinawatra’s Prime Minister Inauguration" and sold to the attendees, as appeared in the accusation.
4 October 2003
The Plaintiff’s witnesses Hearing,
At Southern Bangkok Criminal Court, there were the Plaintiff’s witnesses hearing. The judges on the bench were Mrs. Suwimol Tussaro and Mr. Napol Meenapa.
Police General Wassana Permlap, the former President of the Election Commission testified that on 22 September 2003, the Election Commission and the Constitutional Court jointly organized the seminar. The lecture was completed before 12.00. Then, the attendees were allowed to give some comments. The defendant expressed his comment through a microphone. When he heard the defendant’s speech, he asked the defendant to stop because the speech was precarious. Then, he has a chance to talk to the defendant and received two books together with 40 Baht of consideration from the defendant. After returning to the office, he read the books and thought that the statements in several episodes were not appropriate so he called the police for preliminary investigation. About one month later, he wrote a letter to the Commissioner – general of the Royal Thai Police to consider whether the texts were illegal, especially under the lese majeste law.
5 October 2003
The Plaintiff’s witnesses Hearing,
At the Southern Bangkok Criminal Court, there were the Plaintiff’s witnesses hearing. The judges on the bench were Mrs. Suwimol Tussaro and Mr. Napol Meenapa.
Mrs.Benjawan Booranadilok, an employee of Telephone Organization of Thailand, testified that on 22 September 2003, she attended in the seminar about Constitutional Court which talked via a microphone. When the lecturer finished his narration around 11 PM., the attendees were allowed to express their opinions. The defendant showed his undeserving view since he disparaged the King. He also sold books which had insulting words to the king to the participants during lunch time. After that Crime Suppression Division Police ask her to be a witness by opening the tape of the seminar and bringing the documents written by the defendant. She assured that the aforesaid statement had insulting words to the King.
Mr.Boonkrong Nipawanich, a secretary of Phao Thai Party, testified that he was attending to the seminar on 22 September 2003. When the lecturer narrated until 11 PM., he offered an opportunity to the attendees for questioning and expressing their opinions until 12 PM. The defendant walked to a microphone however the witness could not see him obviously. During lunch, the defendant offered for documents sale to the attendees and the witness by himself. The witness listened to the Defendant’s speech, he stroke his mind in which the defendant's words and saw that the defendant did not pay respect to the king. After that day, the inquiry officials of Crime Suppression Division Thai Police sent a summons to him for giving testimony and reading the statement with disparaging word, showed in the books which were distributed by the defendant.
Mr.Chaowana Trimas, an employee of Constitutional Court Office, testified that he attended to the academic seminar on 22 September 2003. He was assigned to be a moderator of the discussion. The seminar was described and discussed via an amplifier and broadcasted via a radio. The seminar was operated until 12 PM. Then the attendees were given an opportunity to criticize and interrogate. The defendant expressed his opinion with referable words to other person. After the seminar, the Defendant distributed and offered for documents sale. Then, the Inquiry Officer had a summons for giving testimony and bringing the same text to the witness, which the defendant said on the seminar day, to read. After reading that text, the witness thought that it was insulting the king.
6 October 2005
The Plaintiff’s witnesses Hearing,
At Southern Bangkok Criminal Court, there was the Plaintiff’s witness hearing by Mrs.Suwimol Thussaro and Mr.Napol Menapa as judges.
Mr.Intachun Burapon, worked at the Office of H.M. Principal Secretary, testified that Police Lieutenant Colonel Mr.Somkuan Peungsub, an Inquiry Officer, brought documents to considered and consulted about Mr.Small Bundit’s accusation of lese majeste. After reading the documents, he was shocked of how dare a writer wrote those texts. Those texts could be read understandably and interpreted in order to make someone be hated. Many texts insulted the King.
7 October 2005
The Plaintiff’s witnesses Hearing,
At Southern Bangkok Criminal Court, there was the plaintiff’s witnesses Hearing by Mrs.Suwimol Thussaro and Mr.Napol Menapa as judges.
Police Major General Nuntawut Noppakun, a retired government officer, testified that before he retired, he had taken a position of Commander of Legal Affairs Division of Royal Thai Police. This case was originally from Police General Mr.Wassana Permlap, sent a complaint letter on seeing an offense about committing lese Majeste to Royal Thai Police. Royal Thai Police had a regulation that the lese majeste case must be considered by a committee that appointed by Commissioner-General of Royal Thai Police. In September 2003, this case was considered that the execution had lese majeste well-grounded.
Police Lieutenant Colonel Mr.Somkuan Peungsab, an Inquiry Official, testified that because a President of Election Commission had sent a letter to Commissioner-General of Royal Thai Police, for considering the speech, which the defendant expressed, that seem toviolate Section 112 of the Criminal Code. After considering by the Committee of Lese Majeste Considering, the Committee had a final decision that the accused fact was an offense of Section 112 of the Criminal Code and assigned the Commissioner of Central Investigation Bureau to conduct an investigation. From an inquiry, it seemed that there were enough evidences for prosecuting the defendant. Therefore, the investigation committees offered to issue an arrest warrant. In an arrested procedure, the defendant pleaded not guilty. During the inquiry, the Defendant could normally give a testimony. The Defendant then testified that he was a writer of the text according to the indictment. In addition, on that day, the defendant also gave documents about this case. Thereafter, there was the case summary which had an opinion in order to indict.
Associate Professor Mr.Choosak Sirinil, a member of the House of Representative of Thai Rak Thai Party, testified that he had been invited to be a lecturer of the seminar. He was narrating until almost 12 PM. Then, he gave a chance to the attendees for interrogating and expressed their opinions. The attendees could speak via a microphone which was broadcasted throughout the meeting room. The witness saw that the defendant rose and asked for permission to question and express his opinion, he could exactly recognize the defendant. The defendant's opinion made the attendees considerably shocked and surprised. After the incident, an Inquiry Official sent a summons to him for being a witness. Then, an Inquiry Official let him saw the documents that the defendant wrote. When he read some part of the documents, he thought that the texts were an offense of committing lese majeste.
11 October 2005
The Plaintiff’s witnesses Hearing,
At the Southern Bangkok Criminal Court, there were the Plaintiff’s witnesses hearing. The judges on the bench were Mrs. Suwimol Tussaro and Mr. Napol Meenapa.
Associate Professor Aussadang Paniggabutr, a retired government officer, testified that about this case, he was invited by the Election Commission as the lecturer. The seminar proceeded almost noon and then the attendees were allowed to comment. There were several comments but he was not much interested. Crime Suppression Police then arraigned him to give the evidence because there was a comment seems to be a lese majeste offense. The Inquiry Official showed the statements and books and asked for the comments. He thought the statements referred to the King and was not appropriate to write such statements.
Police Major Sompong Manmai, worked at Police Suppression Department, Royal Thai Police, testified that he was an inquiry officer of this case. Due to the letter from Police general Wassana Permlap to consider whether the defendant’s speech and documents were an offense of lese majeste or not. After arrested the defendant, he participated in the inquiry, interrogated and informed the charges to the defendant. In the investigation process, the Defendant pleaded not guilty. The inquiry officer decided to file afterwards and handed over the case to the Prosecutor. The Prosecutor later ordered the Inquiry Officer for addition interrogation. The Inquiry Officer interrogated several professional representatives for various comments. Many of the witnesses thought some part of the statements seemed to be a violation of lese majeste law.
12 October 2005
The Defendant’s witness Hearing,
At Southern Bangkok Criminal Court, there were the Defendant’s witnesses Hearing. The judges on the bench were Mrs. Suwimol Tussaro and Mr. Napol Meenapa.
Warin Sinsoongsood, worked on Human Resource Development, testified that he and the defendant have known each other since 1967 during a meeting, which he cannot remember, at the National Library. He said there was no abnormality when he physically looked at the Defendant but when they had conversation, it was clear that the defendant had mental illness. He always drivels, his idea was very fanciful. When they talked about the King and the Royal family he always pays respect to the King, the Nation and Religion. When he read the documents, there was no sign of a defamation, insult or threaten to the King because the content was a general principles. Since they have known each other, he said that the defendant is clever and intelligent. If the Defendant was not writing and reading, he seems to be just an insane person. When he writes, he would express his inner feeling by writing the fancy novel. The pattern of his writing did not connect to each other. The Defendant is an abnormal but not that insane.
Nopporn Suwanpanich, the retired government officer, testified that he has known the defendant by writing the eulogy for the defendant’s book, The Dream beneath the Sun, ten years ago. The defendant was an ordinary person who has never written to insult the King. When he was reading the documents there was nothing defame, insult or threaten the King. The content is the subject of the sentence but the meaning was not talking about the King. Most of the texts did not connect and not related to the King.
Peter Koret, foreigner, testified that he was studying Thai so he can speak and read Thai more than 20 years. He knew the Defendant around 17-18 years because he was interested in Thai literature so he went to many publishers and met the defendant. He was wonder that the defendant was not close to the other author so he asked Mr.Kumsingh Srinok, the author, Kumsingh said the defendant is an insane person. He asked many authors, most of them said that the Defendant is insane person.
Peter testified that he had a friend, psychiatrist, Karren Sprinkle, from America. He invited Karren and the defendant to meet each other. Karren said the Defendant has mental deficiency and suggested that the defendant should be treated but Peter never do. He has never known that the defendant wrote the documents which defame, insult or threaten the King and the Royal Family. When he read the documents which the defendant’s lawyer showed, the information in the documents did not specify who it was talking about. The texts were not connected but muddle. He wrote anything he can think of. So, it is not just what the defendant wrote but the mental condition of the defendant should be considered.
20 February 2006
The Defendant’s witnesses Hearing,
At Southern Bangkok Criminal Court, there were the Defendant’s witnesses Hearing. The judges on the bench were Mrs. Suwimol Tussaro and Mr. Napol Meenapa.
Duangta Glaipaspong, works at Kallayarajanakarinda Institute, testified this case. She diagnosed mental problem of the Defendant according to the Court’s order. The diagnosis result said that the defendant is 'schizophrenia' which is mental illness. This vividly symptom would show that the patient has abnormal thought, always suspicious and his logical system is different from normal people. The patient would show the symptom through the behavior. When analyze from the Defendant’s texts, the first part is normal. After read until 1-2 pages, it shows the abnormality. The content would jump over. If you just skim, it is clear to see the profundity of the content. But if you analyze again, it would show that there is no deepness of the content. So, the Defendant should be cured.
23 March 2006
The Court of First Instance found Bandit guilty under article 112 of the Criminal Code together with article 65 paragraphs 2: the defendant’s acts were guilty; each act would be punished in different count according to article 91 under the Criminal Code. The defendant was found guilty for 2 counts, and shall received 2 years imprisonment for each count, added up to 4 years imprisonment altogether. But the Court found that the defendant was 64 already years old and was suffering from schizophrenia, plus the defendant had never committed a crime before, the Court then ruled that the defendant should be given a chance to receive a medical treatment, in order to become a good citizen. The defendant shall be released on probation and must present himself to the probation officer He must also seek a medical treatment and report the medical progress to the probation officer every 3 months for 2 years.
24 May 2006
Sompong Boonphinon, Senior Public Prosecutor, Office of Appellate Litigation 2, lodged an appeal against the Court of First, asking the Court to dismiss the suspension of sentences, citing to the Constitution that the king shall be uphold and not be violated. The defendant’s speech and article defamed the King and therefore violated the law. Moreover, the defendant had been a writer, translator, and the editor of Santisan Journal, which help to affirm his writing skill. The message he used was fully comprehensible and intelligible. It was clear that the defendant was fully conscious and was in the capability of controlling himself while committing the crime. It was also clear that the defendant was not at all-time overridden by his schizophrenic symptom. Thus, the sentence should not be suspended.
June 2006
Sutin Barohmajade, defense lawyer - Bandit Aniya, submitted the appeal, which could be summarized as followed:
Though the defendant had a mental illness, he was conscious and was in the capability of controlling himself, therefore, the verdict that would suspend the sentence was given. The Court ordered the defendant to seek medical treatment to cure his illness. Since the defendant had the schizophrenic symptom, ignoring a treatment by sentencing him might result in a revenge, which would not truly solve a social problem. This was supplemented by the doctor’s testimony stating that the defendant’s article was discontinuous and shallow, the sentence suspension was then appropriate by criminology and penology standard.
17 December 2007
The Appeal Court rendered the judgment, which could be summarized as followed:
The Appeal Court has examined and discussed regarding the prosecutor’s appeal whether or not the defendant was conscious and was in the capability of controlling himself while committing the crime. The appeal court had considered the article written by the defendant and the script transcribing the defendant’s speech from the tape recorder, it did occur that the messages were comprehensible, and understandable. There was no part in the messages confusing, or could suggest any sign of insanity. Furthermore, every message shared one united purpose, which was a disagreement with the law protecting the King above all institution. The messages also contained an insult and defamation to the King, Queen, and the Heir-apparent. It also satirically claimed that the royal exploits the people, abhors human value and dignity etc. It then became apparent that while performing the act, the defendant was fully conscious and was in the capability of controlling himself. Therefore, the suspension of sentence should be dismissed. The appeal from the public prosecutor admitted.
The judgment was revised not to suspend the sentence as stated under article 65 paragraphs 2 of the Criminal Code. Even though the defendant plead not guilty, he admitted that he was the writer of the article and he gave the speech, which was a benefit to the trial, therefore, the sentence should be reduced according to the Criminal Code article 78. The sentence was commuted to one-third, resulting to 2 years and 8 months sentence. Suspension was not given. The verdict, apart from this amendment, shall remain as same as rendered by the Court of First Instance.
21 August 2013
At the oom no. 403, Bangkok South Criminal Court. The court set the schedule for the supreme court's verdict announcement. In the court room there were 7 observers.
The proceeding start at 9.30 AM. The neither the defendant nor his lawyer were present at the court.
Peter Koret, Bandit's guarantor told the court that the defendant was not present in the court because he had medical problem and need to go through the operation.
Peter presented the medical recommendation before the court as an evident.
The court set the new schedule for the verdict announcement on 11 December 2013 at 9.00 AM
11 December 2013
At the room number 403, Southern Bangkok Criminal Court. The Court set the schedule for the Supreme Court’s judgment announcement. There were seven observers in the Court room.
The defendant was not present in the court but his lawyer came. The Proceeding started about 9.50 AM. The Court firstly read another case’s verdict about 20 minutes and considered the petition of postponing judgment afterwards.
Mr. Peter Koret, the Defendant’s Guarantor told the court that the Defendant was not present in the court because the defendant’s ailment changed to the worse and needed to be cured by connecting tube to the bladder.
The Court set the new schedule for judgment announcement at 9 AM., 17 February 2013.
17 February 2014
Reading of the verdict
Around 08.00 hrs., Bundit arrived at the Bangkok South Criminal Court, waiting for the judgement of the Supreme Court. There were some journalists talking to him.
At almost 09.00 hrs., Bundit went up to the courtroom No. 403. Some journalists came along with him. Meanwhile, some academics, foreign observers and social activists started getting in the courtroom for observation as well.
About 09.30 hrs., court clerks asked Mr. Bundit whether he was ready for the judement. Bundit’s guarantor informed the court clerks that the defendant’s lawyer was on the way, and asked them to wait for the lawyer. While waiting for the lawyer, some journalists invited Bundit to step outside of the courtroom for an interview. The defendant’s lawyer arrived at about 10.00 hrs.
At 10.10 hrs., the Judges entered the courtroom to take the bench. Prior the Judgement of the Supreme Court was rendered, Bundit asked the Court’s permission to explain an issue. The issue was to postpone the rendering for another three months. It was because the defendant was still being medically treated.
The Court explained to Bundit that the postponement was possible under the rule of law. The postponement because of sickness could be permitted only when the defendant was unable to come to the court. After clarifying to the defendant, the Court started rendering the verdict.
The Supreme Court ruled to enforce the Court of First Instance’s judgement. The Supreme Court sentenced the defendant a two-year imprisonment each count, for two counts, and were altogether a four-year imprisonment. But the sentence was suspended for three years. There was a probation, and the defendant had to report every three months.
The Verdict
Summary of the Verdict of the Court of First Instance
The Court of First Instance rendered its verdict that Bandit was found guilty of two counts and gave him 4 years’ imprisonment. However, the Court believed that he had suffered from a mental illness categorized as schizophrenia and therefore suspended the sentences. Later on,
Summary of the verdict of the Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal came to the conclusion that Bandit was fully conscious and was in the capability of controlling himself while committing the crime. The Appeal Court then ruled that the suspension of the sentences should be dismissed. Nevertheless the defendant admitted that he was the author of the document and the speech, the court then reduced the sentences to two-third, resulting in 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. Now the case is in the process of Dika.
Summary of the Verdict of the Supreme Court
the fact that the defendant violated the law: defaming, insulting or threatening the King, the Queen, the Heir Apparent, or the Regent, was a fact that already agreed, and both parties didn’t argue in the Supreme Court.
An issue to be considered was that whether the defendant committed an offence while he was conscious, and whether a reprieve was appropriate. The issue of whether the defendant was conscious while committing an offence; the defendant had a medical doctor testified and confirmed that a medical examination found out that the defendant had been suffered from mental disorder since the age of 34. The offence was committed while the defendant was sick. When the Court of Appeal ruled the defendant committed an offence while he was conscious, the Supreme Court disagreed.
The issue whether a reprieve was appropriate; when the fact shown that while committing an offence, the defendant was suffered from mental disorder and should be treated continuously. In addition, the defendant was in an old age, hasn’t committed a crime neither has been imprisoned. He deserved a chance to change his mind and to be a good citizen. When the Court of Appeal ruled no suspension of punishment, the Supreme Court disagreed.
The Supreme Court ruled to enforce the Court of First Instance’s judgement. The Supreme Court sentenced the defendant a two-year imprisonment each count, for two counts, and were altogether a four-year imprisonment. But the sentence was suspended for three years. There was a probation, and the defendant had to report every three months.
Reference
Bandit’s case, LM Watch website. 12 May 2009 (Cited on 11 April 1012)
