Case

The Summary of the Court of Appeal’s Verdict  

 

The plaintiff claimed himself to be a witness, who testified that he never impeded the energy reform. He only advised what was beneficial to the nation and the government at the time. The plaintiff did not talk about energy-related subjects on PDRC stage. But he talked about state-owned enterprise administration. The plaintiff never obstructed anyone to talk about energy-related subjects on the stage. The plaintiff had Suratchai, the attorney, and Paiboon Amornpinyokiat, a witness. They both testified that the defendant imported false messages.       

 

The judge considered that the plaintiff’s witnesses affirmed that the plaintiff had no intention as stated by the defendant mentioned on the Facebook posts. At first the judge had to agree that the plaintiff was a good and honest man, and did not cause any damage to the nation regarding energy-related subjects. The plaintiff only had different opinions on energy policies to the defendant’s group.    

 

The defendant testified that the information on Facebook was a fact. There were witnesses included M.L. Wanwipha Charoonroj Burutratanapan, Dr. Kamolpan Cheewapansri, Mr. Sommart Prontee, and Mr. Panthep Puapongpan. The defendant also had documentary evidences submitted. The judge deemed the defendant’s witnesses did not affirm whether the plaintiff acted as claimed. And the documentary evidences had not been analyzed. They were more like personal thoughts that could be changed according to their interests, experiences, and opinions.         

 

The judge considered circumstances, sources, and facts of the documentary evidences accordingly. The judge found that the defendant’s evidences was insufficient, comparing to the plaintiff’s. For this case, the plaintiff was actually the eyewitness who directly involved in the issues. The judge ruled that the message posted by the defendant about the plaintiff’s behavior was false.       

 

When the defendant posted and shared the alleged massage, that was a violation of the plaintiff’s rights. Reasonable persons could believe that the plaintiff and his wife misbehaved, took advantage of the people, and caused damage to the nation. All this could have damaged the plaintiff’s reputation, as well as could have been insulted and hatred. The defendant’s action was therefore a wrongdoing, filed by the plaintiff.        

 

The defendant appealed that the plaintiff and his wife were public figures, who were to be criticized and condemned. And people had questions regarding the plaintiff’s management on energy issues, such as offering so much petroleum concessions the government had never been done this much before, extending oil and gas concession agreements, expanding concession areas, and amending energy laws so there would be conflict of interest. The judge reasoned that though the defendant had the right to freedom of opinion and expression, to criticize normally as ordinary people would do, but that expression must not violate other’s and their family member’s rights, honor, reputation, and privacy of the plaintiff and his family member. The defendant could not just express his opinion without limit.  

The defendant argued that the Court of First Instance considered only the plaintiff’s evidence, not the defendant’s, and reduced examinations and proceedings. The judge reasoned that the defendant did not submit any statements during the first trial as stated in the Court of Appeal. The Criminal procedure clearly stated the Court of First Instance’s discreation when considering the evidences. The defendant’s argument was not sufficient to invalidate the Court of First Instance’s proceedings.      

 

The Court of Appeals agreed with the Court of First Instance’s decision. It was that the defendant was found guilty of defamation and under the Computer Crime Act. But the defendant had never served prison sentences. And the ground of the charges was about opinion and expression on national energy policies. The circumstances of the case did not cause much damage to the plaintiff’s reputation. The judge considered that the crime was not too severe, and decided to suspend the imprisonment for three years.     

 

In order to have the defendant learn the lesson, the judge fined him 40,000 Baht, then reduced by one-fourth. The total fine was 30,000 Baht.