Samak

8 July 2014

 

Nighttime, the exact hour was uncertain, Samak destroyed a picture of the King by tearing it down. Only the structure of the arched entrance, which had been built by the villagers, was left at the entrance of Sanpasak Village, Plong Subdistrict, Thoeng District, Chiang Rai Province.

 

A police was informed and arrived at the scene where the accused was. The accused confessed that he was the offender. So the police took him to Chiang Rai Military Court for detaining him.

 

10 November 2014

 

A lawyer from Thai Lawyers for Human Rights Center (TLHR) said that Chiang Rai Military Court made a deposition examination in the afternoon. But the lawyer asked the judge to postpone the hearing another time because the defendant was not ready to testify. 

 

The lawyer stated that from the previous hearing, another defendant’s lawyer from TLHR filed a petition to the judge to request for the defendant's medical records from three hospitals. But the lawyer hasn't got any document yet. 

 

The court answered that from the previous hearing, the other defendant’s lawyer only informed the court to request for the defendant’s medical records but he did not mention the hospitals’ addresses nor did he mention the patient’s ID number. So the Court could not order requesting for the document.    

 

The defendant’s lawyer clarified to the judge that nowadays only by providing the defendant’s name and they would be able to find the medical record. But the judge argued that the Court needed other documents to refer to, such as a copy of the patient card. The Court could not order the requesting for the medical records without any reference.

 

The judge ordered the defendant’s lawyer to provide the defendant’s patient card within 7 days from today. Moreover, the lawyer had to provide the hospitals’ addresses and clearly inform the titles of the required documents. The judge scheduled another deposition examination on 11 December 2014.

 

The defendant’s lawyer disclosed that for this case, the court did not allow any outsider to observe in the courtroom, except the defendant’s close relatives. However, there was not any observer come to the court today. 

 

11 December 2014

 

Chiang Rai Military Provincial Court scheduled the deposition examination at 09.00 AM but the procedure started around 11.10 AM. The court took the bench and asked to discuss with the defendant’s lawyer privately. The court also asked other participants, who were military police, officer from Department of Corrections and the defendant to step outside. After about 10 minutes, the court allowed everyone back in the courtroom.

 

The court informed the defendant’s lawyer that the court received documents from Chiang Rai Prachanukroh Hospital and Thoeng Hospital but did not get the document from Medical Correctional Institution. The defendant’s lawyer did not bother with the document from Medical Correctional Institution.

 

The court asked the defendant whether he was ready to testify or not. The defendant replied that he was ready. The court read the complaint that specified the actions according to the allegations, and asked whether the defendant understood or not. The defendant said that he understood. The court then asked the defendant how he wanted to plead. The defendant answered that he could not remember the incident. The court asked the defendant again that whether he wanted to plead guilty or not. The defendant’s lawyer asked the defendant whether he had committed according to the charge or not. The defendant confessed. The defendant’s lawyer asked whether the defendant felt conscious while committing it. The defendant answered that he was unconscious. He further told that he was ill. He had been fitfully hearing voices in his head.  

 

The court read the defendant’s statement, which was summarized as the defendant pleaded guilty for all charges. But he committed while being unconscious because he had suffered from mental disorder, as he had been treated, according to the medical records, at Chiang Rai Prachanukroh Hospital and Thoeng Hospital. The defendant’s lawyer asked the court to consider dismissing the case. The court asked the prosecutor whether he would object the defendant’s request. The prosecutor said that the defendant did not confess to the prosecutor’s charges. The prosecutor asked to testify witnesses in the court. The defendant’s lawyer tried to convince the prosecutor not to testify the eyewitnesses because the defendant had already admitted the deposition in the inquiry process. But the prosecutor explained that a prosecutor has the right to summon a witness, and it was necessary to testify the witnesses due to the defendant’s consciousness. 

 

The defendant’s lawyer tried to refer Court of Justice’s decision, which suspended the defendant’s sentence because the defendant had mental disorder, to the Court. But the court told the defendant’s lawyer that the military court’s procedure was different from the civilian court’s procedure. The defendant’s background check and medical record investigations was the Court of Justice’s process, which the Military Court did not consider. When the prosecutor questioned the defendant’s reference on health condition, the prosecutor had a right to have witnesses testified. The court scheduled to examine the first prosecutor’s witness on 12 January 2015.

 

12 January 2015

 

The Prosecutor’s Witnesses Examining

 

Prachatai reported that at Chiang Rai Military Court, the Judge Advocate brought Pol.Sen.Sgt.Maj. Rachan Jansook, stationed at Thoeng Police Station, and was the arrester, to be the first eyewitness to testify.

 

Rachan testified that on 8 July 2014, at 20.30 PM, he was informed by the Assistant Village Headman of Sanpasak Village that someone was trying to destroy the picture of the King at the Honour-Celebration arched entrance of the village. Upon Rachan’s arrival at the scene, he found the defendant tearing down the images of the King and the Queen, and putting offerings on the ground too. When the defendant confessed, Rachan informed the charges, seized the evidence and brought the defendant to the inquiry official. 

 

Rachan also testified that while arresting, the defendant appeared to be intoxicated. The defendant’s body odor was alcoholic but the defendant was able to communicate. In the night of arrest, Rachan asked the defendant for a drug test, but the defendant refused. The reason for the drug test was that the defendant appeared to be abnormal and it was necessary to know precisely whether the defendant had been intoxicated by alcohol or by drugs. But Rachan did not know that the defendant had had mental disorder.   

  

After finished the witness’s testimony, the judge scheduled next witness examination on 10 February 2015, at 08.30 AM.

 

Afterwards Samak informed his lawyer that he still heard voices frequently when he was alone. It was as if someone was whispering or a group of people talking by his ears. Samak had to take medicine every day. Now Samak was transferred to infirmary section in the prison.     

 

10 February 2015

 

The Prosecutor’s Witnesses Examination

 

At 09.50 AM, the judge took the bench and informed the prosecutor that the defendant had appointed another lawyer.

 

The second prosecutor witness was Worrawit Srikham, 50 years old, was a farmer and an Assistant Village Headman to the village where Samak had lived in. His duty was to maintain peace and order in the village. He took the position from 1 January 2012 until present.  

 

Worrawit testified that the incident happened on 8 July 2014, at about 7.00 PM, at the entrance of Khun Plong reservoir, Moo 10, Plong Subdistrict. He was informed by the phone that someone was destroying the picture of the King. Worrawit went out to have a look, and saw someone at the scene. At that time he did not know that it was Samak. Then Worrawit reported to the police, who were 200 meters away from where the incident had happened. When the police arrived, that person was arrested and then Worawit realized it was Samak. 

 

Worrawit testified that he saw Samak tearing down the picture of the King. When the police arrested him, he asked Samak’s family and relatives to take a look, but no one came. Worrawit reported to the Village Headman, who later arrived at the scene. The police and Worrawit asked the defendant why he did it. The defendant replied that he did not like. And they took the defendant to Thoeng Police Station.  

 

Worrawit testified that the arch in the scene was the King honor-celebration arch, which had been built for dedicating merit to the King, and for the villagers to pay respect to. There were pictures of the King and the Queen together. And there were a set of altar tables and offerings. The arch had been built for about 2 years by the Municipality’s budget. But the villagers helped constructing and shared about 2,000 Baht for lunch and other expenses during the construction.          

 

Answering the Defendant’s Lawyer Cross-examine

 

Both Worrawit and Samak were born and grew up in the same village, which was Moo 10, Plong Subdistrict. Therefore the witness knew Mr. Samak very well. This village was a medium-sized village. There were about 240 households. Most of the villagers were relatives or knew each other. When something happened everyone all knew about it. 

 

The lawyer asked about the incident happened in 2014. It was that the defendant burned his own motorcycle. Worrawit knew about it. The police and Worrawit saw the wreckage when they went to Mr. Samak’s house. They knew that two weeks before the incident Mr. Samak had taken the motorcycle for fixing but it had not been fixed, so he burned it down.  

 

The lawyer said that Samak had had mental disorder, and asked whether Mr. Samak had ever gone to the hospital for medical treatments. Worrawit answered yes, and other villagers knew this too. Moreover Samak was alcoholic. 

 

The lawyer asked whether about 4 – 5 years ago, Samak had burned his own house. Worrawit said he did not but only damaged it. It could have been due to domestic stress. 

 

The lawyer asked whether the police officer had been talking to Mr. Samak for a period of time while arresting him and that Worrawit was around there. Worrawit said yes. The lawyer asked whether Samak seemed to be intoxicated. Worrawit testified that no, he was not. He was able to communicate. 

 

Worrawit said that usually on Father’s and Mother’s Days, villagers would construct an honour-celebration arched entrance in the village, as well as this arched entrance that was about 50 meters away from the defendant’s house. This kind of incident had never happened in the village before.    

 

Answering the Prosecutor’s Reexamine 

 

The prosecutor asked whether Samak damaged his house because his wife wanted to divorce him or not. Worrawit testified that he didn’t know because it was the defendant’s family issues. He only knew that it could have been due to stress.  

 

The prosecutor asked that while the police was questioning Samak at the scene, Worrawit was contacting the Village Headman and Samak’s relatives. So Worrawit could not hear all the conversation between the police and Samak. Was this correct? Worrawit said yes.

 

Finished the witness’s examination at 10.34 AM, the prosecutor asked the court to summon the third eyewitness, Ket Saikham, to testify next hearing. Both parties agreed to schedule next witness’s examination on 10 March 2015, at 08.30 AM.  

 

10 March 2015

 

The Prosecutor Witness’s Examination

 

The TLHR lawyer informed that the judge has postponed the third witness’s examination to 9 April 2015 because the witness has a personal matter. The lawyer was not informed before. Because the Court only knew that the witness did not turn up at the Court on 10 March too. 

 

10 July 2015

 

The Prosecutor Witness's Examination

 

The Chiang Rai Military Court scheduled to examine two prosecutor’s witnesses. The first person is the ex-wife of the defendant. The other is the former village headman who knows the defendant.

 

The defendant informed his lawyer that he decided to confess his guilty in order to finish the case. In the past, the court scheduled to examine witnesses many times but not finished it yet. So he was nervous. Then his lawyer had informed a court officer before the trial started.     

 

At around 10.30 am, the court took the bench and asked the prosecutor about witnesses. There is only one witness, the former village headman, came to the court for the hearing on this day. The defendant’s lawyer stated to the court that the defendant decided to confess his charge.    

 

The court asked the defendant whether he wanted to confess or not. The defendant confirmed. Then the court asked the prosecutor whether the prosecutor would like to continue examining witnesses or not. Then the court wrote the court proceedings report that the defendant turned his testimony to confess his charge and scheduled for verdict reading on 6 August 2015.       

 

The defendant's lawyer asked the court for sending the closing argument within July, 27. However, the court told that the closing argument must be send within 15 day so the lawyer have to submitted it within July, 24. 

 

April 2017

 

Another political prisoner informed that Samal was released after served his prison term. Samak had been really detained in prison around 2 years and 9 months.