Siraphop : Defying NCPO order
Latest Update: 12/08/2019
Defendant
Siraphop
Case Status
Judgment / End of trial
Case Started
2014
Complainant / Plaintiff
No information
Table of Content
Siraphop is a writer who uses the pseudonym 'Rungsila'. He has written articles and poems on political issues and published them on websites and his personal Facebook account. On 1 June 2014, Siraphop's name appeared in the summon order No. 44 of the NCPO. Some individuals whose name has appeared on this order were prosecuted for violating Article 112 of the Criminal Code.
Even though Siraphop’s name appeared on the NCPO summon order, he did not report himself according to the order. On 25 June 2014, while Siraphop was driving on the street near Muang District, Kalasin province Siraphop was forcibly stopped by plain-clothed armed men.
Siraphop was held under martial law in a military camp in Khonkhean Province for a night, later on he was transferred to be detained at the Crime Suppression Division until Martial Law detention was dued . He was then charged for defying the NCPO summon order. On 2 June 2014 the Bangkok Military Court released
Siraphop on bail. However, Siraphop was held upon his release by the Technology Crime Suppression Division so that lese majeste charges can be pressed. Since then, Siraphop had never been released on bail.
Witnesses examination of this case began in November 2014 and concluded in August 2016. 5 witnesses had been brought before the court. 4 were witnesses for the prosecution and 1 was the defendant himself.
Even though there were only 5 witnesses in this case, the system of proceedings in the military court contributed to a delay. The Military Court did not examine witnesses continuously, as it typically took a month or two before the court scheduled for the next hearing. There were also cases where witnesses for the prosecution did not come to the court on the date and caused another month of delay.
On 25 August 2016, the Military Court was set to examine the second witness for the defendant. The defendant however told the court that he no longer needed this witness to testify in his defense, the court then ordered to cancel the proceeding and scheduled to render a verdict on 25 November 2016. Prior to the date when the defendant submitted his closing statement to the court, the court asked the defendant to alter the part of his statement with regard to the acceptance of sovereign power of the junta who seized power by coup d'etat.
On 25 November 2016, the Bangkok Military Court found Siraphop guilty for defying the NCPO summon order on the grounds that Siraphop was aware of the order but intended not to comply. As for Siraphop’s argument that his act was the act of civil disobedience, the court observed that the NCPO had already successfully seized administrative power since 22 May 2014. Thus, its’ announcements and orders was thus considered to be the law. Even though Siraphop claimed his action as the act of civil disobedience, however it is still a violation of law.
Siraphop was sentenced to a year in prison and fined in the sum of 18,000 Baht. Since his testimony was beneficial to the court proceedings, the penalty was reduced to an 8-months prison sentence and a fine in the sum of 12,000 Baht. Since Siraphop had never been sentenced to prison previously, the court then suspended his sentence for 2 years.
The offense of this case occurred while Martial Law was enforced, the defendant then had no right to appeal in the Military Court and the case was closed. As for Siraphop, even though the court ordered to suspend his sentence, he is still in detention for his Lese Majeste case as his bail petition was dismissed.
Defendant Background
Siraphop is a 52-year-old Red Shirt activist who concentrates on doing online political campaigns by using “Rung Sira" as his pseudonym. Before his arrest, he made a living as a contractor in Songkhla province.
Offense
Declarations / Orders of Junta, Defying NCPO order 41/2014
Allegation
After the seizing of power by the National Council Peace and Order (NCPO), Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha, the NCPO chief, issued the order No. 44/2557 on 1 June 2014, summoning a group of individuals, including Siraphop, to report to the army. He however didn’t go to report to the NCPO.
Siraphop’s arrest warrant was issued on 8 June 2014. On 25 June 2014, military officers arrested him for defying the NCPO's order.
Circumstance of Arrest
Siraphop was restrained by military officers during his travel from Kalasin to Udonthani. Plainclothes military officers drove Toyota Fortuner to crosscut Siraphop’s van while entering Kalasin's downtown. There were at least five fully-armed plainclothes military officers getting out of the car.
Moreover, there was a group of officers from another car parking behind the van. The van was besieged and the military officers told every passenger to lie down on the rain-wet road.
Siraphop and the van's driver were arrested and detained at the government office in Kalasin for the first night, and then kept into custody at Sriharaj Dechochai military camp in Khonkaen for the second night.
After that, he was transferred to Bangkok for a further detention until seeing out its 7-day term.
Trial Observation
No information
Black Case
40 ก./2557
Court
Bangkok Military Court
Additional Info
For more details on Siraphop’s Section 112 case please visit:
http://freedom.ilaw.or.th/case/622
Reference
1 July 2014
Siraphop was reportedly charged with violating the NCPO’s announcement No. 41/2557 at the Crime Suppression Division (CSD) and was detained there after acknowledging the accusation.
2 July 2014
Siraphop was taken to the Military Court to request for further detention; however, he was granted bail and released from the Bangkok Remand Prison.
Despite being bailed out, he was arrested again and brought to the Technology Crime Suppression Division (TCSD) office for interrogation for violating Article 112 of Criminal Code and Computer-related Crime Act.
The authority detained Siraphop at the Thung Song Hong police station for one night before bring him to the court the request for detention order in the next day.
The second arrest by the TCSD officers was due to a report filed to the police on 30 June 2014, alleging that the messages on his Facebook and his poem on Prachathai’s web board posted by him are considered offensive.
3 July 2014
Siraphop was taken to Criminal Court in order to request for detention order. His lawyer as well as his relatives submitted the request for temporary release. However, the documents were incompleted, he was then taken to detain at the Bangkok Remand Prison.
9 September 2014
In the Courtr oom No.3 of the Bangkok Military Court, the military prosecutor has accused Siraphop of defing the NCPO order.
At 11.00 am, the judge took the bench and the indictment was read out to Siraphop. He denied the accusation and decided to defend the lawsuit. The court scheduled to examine witnesses on 11 November 2014.
12 September 2014
At the Bangkok Military Court, the military prosecutor submitted the 7th phase of Siraphop’s detention warrant, claiming that he just received the case report on 8 September 2014 so he was not yet thoroughly examine it. Siraphop’s lawyer opposed against the detention warrant, citing the Military Court didn't have any jurisdiction over this case and any authority to detain his client.
Around 10.30 AM, the court began a proceeding to consider whether to extend Siraphop detention or not. The court informed the defendant and his lawyer that the offensive messages which posted on the internet still appeared so far so the offence shall remain valid. Hence, the case was deemed to be under the jurisdiction of the Military Court.
Furthermore, comparing with the Supreme Court judgment on the offence of defamation committed by means of publication, in case that the defamatory messages are still in existence, it would be regarded as a continuing offence.
Even though there is only one continuing offence which is under the Military Court's jurisdiction, other offences shall be assumed related and are under its jurisdiction as well.
The defence lawyer opposed that the alledged crimes were committed before the NCPO’s order No. 37/2557 was issued, therefore the case was excluded from the jurisdiction of the military court. The defence lawyer requested the court to consider this issue in a written form on its order if the Military Court was determined to prevail over this case.
The Court further informed that the Criminal Court has already decided to put this case under the Military Court's jurisdiction. If the Military Court rejected the case, it would probably be tossed back and forth between two courts.
Also, the court viewed that during the detention phase, it has no authority to render any decision on the jurisdictional area as it is a consideration of the questions of law. Those who opposed the decision were asked to raise the jurisdictional issue again after the case was accepted by the Court.
And if there is a petition regarding the subject lodged to the Court afterwards, it would certainly consider about the jurisdiction first. The military prosecutor also disagreed with the defendant’s request as the case was recognized to be under the Military Court's jurisdiction.
The court granted the 7th-phase detention warrant.
Siraphop’s lawyer filed an appeal against the court’s decision as soon as the detention order was issued, by citing that the previously made opposition was regarding the jurisdiction issue but the order appeared irrelevant to his complaint. The appeal claimed that the order released by the court was illegitimate. The Court decided to accept his petition.
For the report of the proceedings, it specifies on 8 September 2014 that after an investigation officer has acknowledged that the case was under the jurisdiction of the Bangkok Military Court, he thus requested the Criminal Court to remove the pending detention order against Siraphop.
After the Criminal Court approved the matter, the remand request was immediately filed to the Military Court, while on 12 September 2014, the military prosecutor indicated that the detention order was within the Military Court jurisdiction.
As the lawyer’s appeal has insufficient factual information along with the reason that it was during a detention phase, the Court then did not settle any decision on the issue.
In the same day, the defendant submitted bail requests by using 300,000 baht and 40,000 baht in cash as gages for temporary release for the offence under Article112 of Criminal Code and violating the NCPO’s declaration respectively.
The Court rejected both of his bail requests. In case of violating Article 112, the court gave the reason that his accusation had an effect on peace, and public moral. Moreover, a person who commits such act shall receive high degree of punishment. If the suspect was granted a temporary release, the court was concerned that he might flee.
For the charge of defying the NCPO’s order, the court explained that the defendant was being accused with lèse majesté in which bails are denied so the court didn't have any reason to temporarily release him.
Th defendant’s lawyer also asked the court for duplicating the trial report, but the court didn't allowed. The lawyer can only take note because the lawyer has already acknowledge everything in the trial.
11 November 2014
The examination of witness for the prosecution
The Bangkok Military Court began the proceeding at 8.30 AM. However, the procedure had to be postponed to the afternoon due to the coordination mistake between the Department of Corrections and the Court, causing delay in taking Siraphop to the court. Siraphop said that the same mistakes had been repeatedly occurred 3-4 times.
Around 1.30 PM, the military prosecutor stated to the Court that Lt. Col. Burin Thongphrapai had urgent business and could not attend the witness examination. The defendant didn’t have any objection so the witness examination was scheduled on 22 January 2015.
The defendant submitted a request regarding the jurisdiction of the court to the Constitutional Court to consider that whether the announcement of the NCPO No. 37/2557 goes against Section 4 of the Interim Constitution and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) or not.
However, the Court countered that the defendant lawyer’s request was not only allegedly referred to the third party, the NCPO, but also violated the jurisdiction of the court. Despite the insistence of the lawyer that they will not amend the request, the Court still urged the lawyer to revise the request within seven days, or else the request would be considered as the court see.
Verdict
No information