- iLaw Website
- Documentation Center
Case
Case name
Contempt of Court case against activists (Khon kaen Provincial Court)
Name of persons / Name of Media
Anuwat
Case status
คำอธิบายสถานะคดี ภาษาอังกฤษ
Judgment / End of trial
Status of Accused
Others(awaiting sentence)
Offense / order
Others (Code of Civil Procedure)
Summary
Progress of case
Since around 7:00 am, the five Daodin activists, the offenders in this case, are “Benjamas”, “Anuwat”, Chatmongkon, Payu and Panupong gathered at the faculty of law in Khon Kean University to commute to the hearing on foot at the Khon Kaen provincial court along with friends and seniors from Daodin group, approximately 15 people, who came to support and walk along. On the way, the Daodin activists group stopped at the Bung Si Than reservoir in front of Khon Kaen University to read a statement shortly before continue walking. All arrived at the Khon Kaen provincial court around 8:45 am in which during the walk, a plainclothes officer followed along and recording, however, they did not obstruct or intervene with the walk.
10 February 2017,
Khon Kaen Provincial court set an appointment for Jatupat the defendant of lese majeste case by sharing the BBC’s article on the King's Biography on his Facebook page to the deposition examination. On that day, many people came to observe the trial but were unable to be inside the court room due to court’s order to try the case in secrecy. People who came and wanted to encourage Jatupat had to wait until the end of the trial to visit him, however after the trial, the correctional officer hurriedly brought the defendant back to prison without opportunity to meet with supporters.
A group of activists, who mostly are students from many university, performed a symbolic action by recreated the gesture of Jatupat which he had done in the photo shoot with friends and it had caused the cancelation of the bail from the court who saw this as a sign of mockery of the authorities. Moreover, the group of activists used the wood to make the sign of the tilted scaler, in which on one side hanged a military boot and the other side an empty bucket. There was an encouragement to lay down the white rose, a symbol of mourning, on the base of the scaler to represent the injustice of Jatupat’s case. The group of activists, in addition, read a statement in the name of four-region student network, recited the poet and sang a song to cheer Jatupat up. After that they cleaned the area and went back peacefully.
17 March 2017,
Thai Lawyers for Human Rights reported that Payu, Arkom, “Benjamas” and Narongrit received the Khon Kaen provincial court’s summon to the hearing on the contempt of court case arising from the activity on 24 April 2017.
20 March 2017,
Khaosod Online news referenced the Thai Lawyers for Human Rights’ report that there were 3 activists, Sirawith, Panupong and “Anuwat”, who received the Khon Kaen provincial court’s summon to the hearing on 24 April 2017 for the contempt of court case on the event on 10 Febuary 2017 as well. There are seven accused from that particular activity in total.
24 April 2017,
The court hearing of the accused
Since around 7:00 am, the five Daodin activists, the offenders in this case, are “Benjamas”, “Anuwat”, Chatmongkon, Payu and Panupong gathered at the faculty of law in Khon Kean University to commute to the hearing on foot at the Khon Kaen provincial court along with friends and seniors from Daodin group, approximately 15 people, who came to support and walk along. On the way, the Daodin activists group stopped at the Bung Si Than reservoir in front of Khon Kaen University to read a statement shortly before continue walking. All arrived at the Khon Kaen provincial court around 8:45 am in which during the walk, a plainclothes officer followed along and recording, however, they did not obstruct or intervene with the walk.
Daodin Group activists walked on foot from Khon Kaen University to Khon Kaen provincial court accompanied by a plainclothes officer who recorded the event.
After Daodin Group activists arrived at the gate of Khon Kaen Provincial Court, they rested and discussed for a while before entering the court’s building to the specified court room but later the court orders to move the hearing to Room number 12 on second floor with both the court’s security guards and some of the plainclothes officers observed in front of the room. On that day, in addition of the Daodin activists who walked on foot to the court, there were some of the Daodin activists and activists from other groups came and observed this hearing approximately around 40-50 people.
The hearing started around 10:00 am, the court called out all the names of the accused to stand up and when the name of Sirawith was called the lawyer from the Thai Lawyers for Human Rights stood up and stated that he was the attorney of Sirawith and to state for the adjourn of the hearing due to the necessity of attending the class that day. Later the court began the process by order all six activists who were at the court to confirm their presence on the photographic evidence. All six accused looked at the picture and confirmed their identity presented on the picture. The court read the charges aloud and later the court informed to six accused about their rights that they have the right to request for attorney, have the right to testify or do not testify. The accused stood up and declared the intention of withdrawing the prior appointed attorney and asked to be in the hearing and question the related witnesses himself. After that the court asked all six accused whether they would testify that day or wait to testify later at the same time with Sirawith. All six said that they wished to testify today.
The court asked for the plea, all denied. The court ordered that because of the absence of Sirawith, there were no hearing today but asked all to make the written testimony including the reason for such action to be submitted to the court within 15 days.
Later the court asked all the offenders whether their parents or relatives were with them because the court should set the warranty in bail during the proceeding. All six stated that there were no parents or relatives with them but there are 2 teachers as bailors. The court requested the two professors to stand up and questioned their relatedness with the seven activists. One of the professors answered the court that he was not the professor at the University that all six were attending but had known all six from the training activities. On the other hand, the second professor answered the court that he knew all six because used to teach them on some of the subject. The court notified to all the six accused that normally bailors should be relatives or someone who was close to in which both the two professors might not be in the stated category.
Primarily, the court appointed the next hearing on 19 May 2017 but all six would have had the examination on that day thus they requested the court to appoint on 31 May 2017 instead, the court repeated that Sirawith should present at the court on that appointed date. After that the court informed all the accused that the court allowed the professors to use their positions as the bail and set the bail to be 50,000 baht each.
8 May 2017,
Thai Lawyers for Human Rights reported that the six activists who were accused of contempt of court had already summitted the written objection to indictment to the court which can be concluded that the action on the time of occurrence was merely an act of freedom in expression in good faith to reflect the point of view of the students and youths towards the justice process and it did not intervene with any of the court of justice process.
The action was not a criminal offense because it did not cause any damage to any property or any harm and also the particular activity did not take place in the court room or in the court area so it did not disrupt or prevent the proceeding of the court. It was not an inappropriate behavior enogh to be considered as contempt the court. Because of the inappropriate behavior in the court must be an action that is violent enough to obstrct the justice procedure of the court.
On time of the occurrence, Khon Kaen Provincial Court did not establish any regulation forbiding the act before or during the hearing process. The court’s security guards did not prohibit such activity. All the six accused therfore faithfully believed that it is possible to express their opinion as every ordinary people in the society can do. When the court issued the precise regulation on the next day; all the six accused had followed the regulation ever since.
Expressing one’s opinion about the justice process had occurred continuously along with the act of freedom of speech and academic freedom according to fundamental rights and freedom of the citizen in which the Constitution of Kingdom of Thailand and international principles have guarateed.
The indictment in this case, was not following the intention of the law and it was not beneficial to the overall justice process because of the offence of the contempt of the court was intended to protect the hearing process to be of freewill and in order. The use of contempt of the court should not be interpreted too board, in a way to criminalise the one who expressed opinion towards the court’s order or justice process. On the other hand by having people criticise the justice process is beneficial to the justice process in a long-term to serve the justice in the society sustainably.
Moreover, the expression of the six accused towards the justice process was not able to influence other people’s opinions because every citizen have the freedom to think and have the freedom to believe and they are able to rely on their own consideration.
31 May 2017,
Sirawith, the other accused attended the court to acknowledge to contempt of court charge and denied the charge.
All 7 accused asked the court to take the three witnesses that the court has already exmained to be cross-examined again by the defense lawyers. The three witnesses are Pornchai, Khon Kaen Provincial Court's director, Pfc.Thanakorn Noisuk, the court's security guard and Pol.Lt.Col.Adisak Ngamkat, a police officer. Because the three witnesses were not present at the court, then the hearings was postponed to 29 June 2017.
