- iLaw Website
- Documentation Center
Case
Stared
Case name
Distributed 'Vote No' documents in market
Name of persons / Name of Media
Jatupat
Case status
คำอธิบายสถานะคดี ภาษาอังกฤษ
On trial in Court of Appeal
Status of Accused
Dismissed
Offense / order
Referendum Act of 2016 section 61, Others (Defying CDR annoucement no.25)
| Name of persons / Name of Media | Status of Accused |
|---|---|
| Wasin | Dismissed |
Summary
Jatupat or 'PAI Daodin', a 25-year-old student from Khonkhean University Faculty of Law and Wasin. a 20-year-old student from engineering geology, SUT were arrested and prosecuted under The Referendum Act after handed out documents criticizing the draft constitution in the market at PhuKhieo District, Chaiyaphum Province on August 6, 2559.
After the court ordered a detention ordred, Jatupat did not apply for bail but declared on hunger strike and got bail later.
During the court's trial, the two defendant denied all charges and claimed their right to free expression. The court dismissed the charge under Referendum Act given that distributing such documents are lawful but fined Jatupat for 500 baht for not providung fingerprint.
Basic information
Background of accused
Jatupat or Pai, aged 25, student at Khon Kaen University, former coordinator of the Dao Din Group (a student activist group calling for human rights and democracy) and used to work with disputed community forest area at Baan Bo Kaew, Khon San district, Chaiyaphum province, before being arrested he was part of the New Democracy Movement (“NDM”).
Jatupat was one of the five Dao Din members who presented “three finger” posture (the “three finger salute” as in the Hunger Games) before Gen. Prayut Chan-o-cha when the Gen. went to Khon Kaen on 19 November 2014; was one of the seven members of Dao Din that presented anti-coup banner on 22 May 2015; and was one of the 14 activists from the NDM that were arrested in the event of organising an anti-coup activity on 25 June 2015 and were detained for 12 days at Bangkok Remand Prison.
Wasin or Palm, aged 20, third year student undertaking the Geotechnology at the Institute of Engineering, Suranaree University of Technology.
Public prosecutor is a plaintiff in this case.
Legal Claims
Disrupted peace in a referendum, Others (Denied to provide fingerprint to authorities)
-
Form of restriction on freedom
Charge filed
-
Type of media
Other
-
Province
Chaiyaphum
-
Court
PhuKhieo Provincial Court
-
Black case
คำอธิบายคดีดำ ภาษาอังกฤษ
Court: ศาลจังหวัดภูเขียว Phukiao Provincial Court No: 1370/2559 Date: 2016-08-19
Details of offence according to charge
Jatupat and Wasin were charged with a violation of Section 61, paragraph 2 of the Referendum Act 2016 after they handed out documents prepared by the NDM on critique of the draft constitution to vendors at Phukioew fresh market. The set of documents in question consists of one copy of dissenting opinion on the draft constitution, 128 copies of document explaining 7 reasons for voting not to accept the draft constitution, and 16 copies of the statement by “Nitirat” group (also known as the “Enlightened Jurists” group in English).
Circumstance of arrest
On 6 August 2016, police, military and administrative officials, all in plainclothes over 10 in total, led by Pol. Col. Aram Prajit, superintendent of Phukioew Police Station, arrested Jatupat and Wasin, while they were handing out documents prepared by the NDM on critique of the draft constitution to vendors at Phukioew fresh market. The officials made a search and confiscated those documents, which are one copy of dissenting opinion on the draft constitution, 128 copies of document explaining 7 reasons for voting not to accept the draft constitution, and 16 copies of the statement by Nitirat group (Enlightened Jurists group).
Until around 17:00, the officials brought the two persons to Phukioew Police Station. Natthawut Weerachun, the Phukioew district chief officer, was also present at the Police Station. In the meantime at Jatupat’s house, more than 10 plainclothes investigation police officer with a search warrant issued by the court came to his house to conduct a search. The objective of the search written in the search warrant was to search for discovering documents. Jatupat’s parents were at the house at that time and the search was conducted with their permission. However, no such document or evidence was found.
Progress of case
6 August 2016
Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (“TLHR”) reported that at about 16:40 police, military and administrative officials, all in plainclothes over 10 in total, led by Pol. Col. Aram Prajit, superintendent of Phukioew Police Station, arrested Jatupat and Wasin, while they were handing out documents prepared by the NDM on critique of the draft constitution to vendors at Phukioew fresh market. The officials made a search and confiscated those documents, which are one copy of dissenting opinion on the draft constitution, 128 copies of document explaining 7 reasons for voting not to accept the draft constitution, and 16 copies of the statement by Nitirat group (Enlightened Jurists group).
Until around 17:00, the officials brought the two persons to Phukioew Police Station. Natthawut Weerachun, the Phukioew district chief officer, was also present at the Police Station. In the meantime at Jatupat’s house, more than 10 plainclothes investigation police officer with a search warrant issued by the court came to his house to conduct a search. The objective of the search written in the search warrant was to search for discovering documents. Jatupat’s parents were at the house at that time and the search was conducted with their permission. However, no such document or evidence was found.
After having examined the documents, the inquiry official of Phukioew Police Station charged the two accused under Section 61, Paragraph 2 of the Referendum Act 2016. The inquiry official then set up a preliminary interrogation. The two accused denied all the charges. After that, the two accused were brought into police custody in the detention room of the police station. It was reported that a deposit of 150,000 baht per person is required for bail.
8 August 2016
The TLHR reported that at 12:20 at the Phukioew Provincial Court, inquiry officials of Phukioew Police Station, Chaiyaphum province, filed a petition for pre-trial detention of Jatupat and Wasin.
The petition specified the detail of allegation that, on 6 August 2015 at about 17:00, police of Phukioew Police Station, investigation police officers, and Phukioew district administrative officials were informed that there were people handing out leaflets on persuasion not to accept the draft constitution on Rat Bamrung public road, Phak Pang sub-district, Phukioew district, Chaiyaphum province, Therefore, they went to the scene and found that Jatupat and Wasin were handing out such leaflets on the said road. They presented themselves as authorities and made a search. Following the search, they found: (1) one copy of dissenting opinion on the draft constitution, (2) 128 copies of document explaining reasons for voting not to accept the draft constitution, and (3) 16 copies of the statement by Nitirat group (Enlightened Jurists group). Accordingly, they arrested the accused 1 (Jatupat) and the accused 2 (Wasin) together with such exhibits. In the arrest and inquiry stages, both accused denied all the charges.
It was stipulated in the petition that the act of the accused was a violation of Section 61 (1) and section 61, paragraph 2 of the Referendum Act 2016, with a penalty of imprisonment for a period not exceeding 10 years, and of the Notification of the Council for Democratic Reform under the Constitutional Monarchy no. 25 (2006), with a penalty of imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding 1,000 baht, or both.
Jatupat and Wasin made a statement of objection to the pre-trial detention on the grounds that the four witnesses who had not been inquired were not concerned with the merits of the case, that the inquiry of their profiles could be accomplished without the pre-trial detention, that there was no likelihood that they would flee, and that they were still students. The Court considered the petition and granted permission for the pre-trial detention for interrogation for a period of 12 days from 8 to 19 August 2016 on the ground that the act of the accused was likely to fall into the scope of a serious crime that has maximum punishment rate of imprisonment exceeding three years.
After the Court granted the pre-trial detention, Jatupat did not make a request for bail. However, the attorneys made a petition for provisional release for Wasin with a deposit of 150,000 baht in cash as security.
Viboon, father of Jatupat acting as attorney of both Jatupat and Wasin, revealed that in the morning on the way to the Court, inquiry officials conducted further interrogation and informed an additional charge against them in the event that they did not cooperate to give their fingerprints. They gave the reason that they had not done anything wrong. With regard to bail, both of them did not request for it since the inquiry stage and began their hunger strike since about 10:00 on 7 August 2016. However, at the pre-trial detention level, Jatupat asked Wasin to request for bail for education reason. Jatupat insisted that he did not want to request for bail and wanted to continue his hunger strike in prison.
Later, at about 15:00, the Phukioew Provincial Court granted Wasin permission for provisional release and released him at the Court. Jatupat was brought into custody at Phukioew District Prison.
15 August 2016
The mother of Jatupat submitted a letter requesting for Jatupat to have a medical treatment at Phukioew Hospital, Chaiyaphum provice following a visit which led to a finding that Jatupat was in condition of complete exhaustion, having high fever, and having pain in his body, and in the night before was in a state of shivering which brought him into unconsciousness. However, Phukioew District Prison treated him only with paracetamol (for relief of pain and reduction of fever). Nevertheless, Jatupat insisted his decision not to request for bail despite his ongoing hunger strike being carried out for eight days.
16 August 2016
The commander of Phukioew District Prison informed Jatupat’s mother that he had moved Jatupat to the medical unit, treating him with minerals and paracetamol, and that he was waiting for the result of blood test and the diagnosis of the doctor from Phukioew Hospital before consideration of her request for transferring Jatupat to Phukioew Hospital is carried out.
The TLHR reported that, after the visit, lawyers of the TLHR went to the Phukioew Provincial Court to file a petition for the Court to call Jatupat to the Court on 19 August 2016 which was the date the period of the first term of pre-trial detention ended in the event that the inquiry officials made a petition for the second term of pre-trial detention, and not to set the hearing by VDO conference. This is because they wanted to make an objection to the second term of pre-trial detention and to make a cross-examination of inquiry officials on the necessary grounds for requesting such a pre-trial detention.
The Phukioew Provincial Court made an order to accept the petition and advised Jatupat’s attorneys that the Court would call for Jatupat on 22 August 2016.
19 August 2016
The TLHR reported that on 09:30 Jatupat was brought from Phukioew District Prison to the Phukioew Provincial Court. The prosecutor immediately instituted a criminal prosecution against him.
After that, officials brought Jatupat to the courtroom. The attorneys of the defendants made a statement that since the period of the provisional release of the sedond defendant was due on 22 August 2016 they requested for both defendants to be tried together. After considering that the second defendant was not present before the Court, the Court ordered to postpone the trial to 22 August 2016 at 09:00 for both defendants to be tried together.
As the lawyer objected the detention during the trial, the Court considered that as the prosecution against both defendants had been instituted and the Court had accepted the charge, the Court had power to issue a detention warrant for the first defendant to be on remand according to section 71 and 88 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Hence, the Court issued a detention warrant except where the bail was requested.
In the afternoon, attorneys together with Viboon, Jatupat’s father, filed a petition for bail for Jatupat. At first, they insisted to use only the lawyer licence of Viboon as security. However, the court official specified the security at 150,000 baht, but with Wiboon’s lawyer licence, the Court requested a deposit of only 30,000 baht and set a condition that the defendant was not permitted to travel abroad.
Additionally, during waiting for prison officials to release Jatupat according to the release warrant, police from Khon Kaen Police Station travelled to the Court in order to request for the seizure of Jatupat for another case, the case of violation of the Head of NCPO order no. 3/2015 from the incident of organising an anti-coup activity on 22 June 2015 at the Democracy Monument in Khon Kaen. Khon Kaen Military Court has already granted an arrest warrant against Jatupat and the other six students of Dao Din group since 2015.
At 17:10 at the time the police were bringing Jatupat into the car of Khon Kaen police in order to depart from the Prison, Prim, mother of Jatupat, and sister of Jatupat were standing at the prison gate to block the car from departing and then went down on their knees. They said that they attempted to request for a meeting with Jatupat for Jatupat to sign an authorization paper for registration of his university enrolment but the request was refused. Prim said in tears that the family had filed a petition for bail but he was then subject to another seizure, and they made a request for his educational interest but was refused despite the fact that it was the last day for such a registration to be completed.
At 18:00, officials from Phukioew District Prison came out to talk with them and permitted only Jatupat’s mother to meet Jatupat and have him sign the document in prison. This happened after they had been kneeling down for nearly one hour. After that, the police from Khon Kaen Police Station immediately took Jatupat into the car and departed for Khon Kaen province.
22 December 2016
Jatupat was brought into custody in prison after the Khon Kaen Provincial Court revoked bail of another case where he was accused of violating Section 112 (lese majeste), of the Criminal Code. The accusation was that it was deemed a crime commission sharing the article of BBC Thai website on the biography of King Rama XI, along with making copy of some parts of the article in question, to his personal Facebook account.
20 January 2017
The date of settlement of issues
The TLHR reported that the Phukioew Provincial Court scheduled the date of settlement of issues for all the parties on this day. However, as Jatupat was detained at prison for the lese majeste case and was scheduled to participate in a trial to inquire pre-trial detention petition at the Khon Kaen Provincial Court on the same day, Jatupat was not able to come to the Court. In addition, a consideration of the Attorney-General, on whether or not to institute a prosecution, had to be waited as Jatupat and Wasin had filed a petition to the Attorney-General to consider withdrawing the charge. The lawyer of Jatupat and Wasin then requested for the trial to be postponed.
The Phukioew Provincial Court granted permission for the postponement and scheduled the new appointment on 16 March 2017.
16 March 2017
At courtroom 1, the judges commenced the hearing at around 10:00. Jatupat did not appear before the Court; only Wasin did, together with two defense lawyers. The Phukioew Provincial Court stated that the Khon Kaen Provincial Court had just submitted a letter on that day stating that it was not able to deliver Jatupat to the Phukioew Provincial Court since Jatupat was subject to an evidence inspection of the lese majeste case at the Khon Kaen Provincial Court on 21 March 2017. After the trial has been concluded, the Khon Kaen Provincial Court will deliver Jatupat to the Phukioew Provincial Court.
The prosecutor and attorneys of the defendants made a joint statement requesting the Court to order the temporary disposal of the case as the conclusion date of the case at Khon Kaen Provincial Court could not be specified. The Phukioew Provincial Court agreed to make the disposal, and advised the prosecutor and the defendant to make a statement before the Court for renewal of the trial after the case at the Khon Kaen Provincial Court has been concluded.
