Case

Stared

Case name

Sombat Boonngam-Anong : Defying NCPO order

Name of persons / Name of Media

Sombat Boonngam-Anong

Status of Accused

Sentence suspended

Summary

Sombat or "Bor Kor Lai Jud" was charged before the Dusit Distric Court for not reporting himself according to summon order of the NCPO.

Later, the court ruled that such orders are retroactive and negatively affect specific persons. The orders, therefore, are unenforceable. The court fined him 500 baht for disobeying the authorities under the Criminal Code.

Basic information

Background of accused

Sombat Boonngam-Anong, “Nuling”, who is widely known by his internet pseudonym “Bor Kor Lai Jud”. He was a former committee chairman of the Mirror Foundation and served as a webmaster of many social service-related websites. Furthermore, he has been the leader of the Red Sunday group.

Sombat had been working in the field of social service. However, since the military seized the power in 2006, he distinctively expressed his opposing standpoint against the junta and became a leader of “Pollamuang Piwat Group” and "19 September Network Against Coup.” Besides, Sombat and his friends founded another anti-coup groups named "Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship " (DAAD) in order to oppose the coup and call for a new election.

In 2010, the DAAD changed its name to “United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship” (UDD) and organized several symbolic activities such as tying up red ribbons at the Ratchaprasong intersection in order to call for responsibilities from the military government over its operation, namely “tighten the area” around the protest which resulted in numerous casualties.

Legal Claims

Others (Failing to report under NCPO orders.)

Form of restriction on freedom

Charge filed
Type of media

Other
Province

Bangkok
Court

Dusit Municipal Court
Black case

คำอธิบายคดีดำ ภาษาอังกฤษ

No: 1515/2557 Date: 2014-07-20

Details of offence according to charge

After the National Coucil for Peace and Order (NCPO) has seized the power on 22 May 2014, Sombat was summoned by NCPO order no. 3/2557 on 23 May 2014. Later, the NCPO issue the annoucement no.25/2557 on 23 May 2014, and the annoucement no. 29/2557 on 24 May 2014 provided the offense of not reporting in time with the penalty of maximum 2 years imprisonment and 40,000 baht fine.

Sombat did not report himself in time witout a notification of reason and then was prosecuted.

Circumstance of arrest

After the National Intelligence Agency tracked down Sombat’s IP address that he used to post defying messages on the internet, Sombat was arrested during the night at his residence in Phan Thong District, Chonburi Province on June 5, 2014. The arrest was a joint operation between a chief of the Technology Crime Suppression Division (TCSD) and the 21st Infantry Regiment officials. Afterwards, he was detained for questioning at the 21st Infantry Regiment before being brought to the Military Court.

Shortly before being arrested, he posted the message on his personal Facebook: "I’ve been arrested already.” After that, Sombat has been sent to unidentified military camp for further investigation.

Progress of case

10 June 2014

Sombat’s wife, Ketsuda Boonngam-Anong, submitted a request to visit her husband because she was informed earlier that her husband was detained at the Army Auditorium on Thewet Road. However, the officer told her that her husband has never been brought there. Later, after hearing the news reporting Sombat was confined at the 21st Infantry Regiment, Queen’s Guard in Chonburi province, Ketsuda, along with officials from the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand, went to the battalion asking if they could visit Sombat, but the answer they received was that he has never been sent there either. Deprived rights to see her husband, Ketsuda called on NCPO to be more concerned over her husband’s basic rights by allowing the detainee’s relatives to know a place of detention.

20 July 2014

The judge advocate filed a charge against Sombat for not reporting to National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), according to the NCPO summons, and for disobeying officers’ orders.

The complaint stated that when NCPO took control the power on 22 May 2015, they had power to govern, to pass and to impose laws, which included the use of power under the Army Order No. 81/2557. The order allowed the coup council to invite individuals to report to officials, in the interest of maintaining peace and order.

NCPO issued the Order No. 3/2557 by virtue of the Army Order No. 81/2557 to enforce the defendant to report at Royal Thai Army Club, Thewet, on 23 May 2014. But the defendant didn’t abide by the order in that day.

Later, NCPO issued the announcement No. 25/2557. It stated that some individuals whose names were indicated in the Order No. 1/2557, 2/2557 and 3/2557 but not comply with the order is punishable by up to 2 years imprisonment or a fine of up to 40,000 baht, or both. After that NCPO repeatedly issued the announcement No. 29/2557. It stated that those individuals failed to report is punishable by up to 2 years imprisonment or a fine of up to 40,000 baht, or both, and disallow any financial transactions and activities. Herewith, all of Orders and Announcements were published by Royal Thai Government Gazette, and was broadcasted and was televised, which the defendant had acknowledged. But the defendant failed to report accordingly, with no extenuating circumstances notified.

As the defendant is the same defendant for the case at Bangkok North Kwaeng Court, Decided Case No. 1589/2554, for committing and violating Emergency Decree on Public Administration in State of Emergency. The case was in the process at the appeal court. So the plaintiff requested the court for accumulative judgment against the defendant who has been convicted for prior offence.

19 August 2014

Case meeting and pre-trial evidence examination

At Dusit Kwaeng Court, the plaintiff requested to examine 18 witnesses; however, the defendant accepted that all 13 eyewitnesses, who were inquiry officials, had investigated this case lawfully. The plaintiff would not bother to examine those eyewitnesses but the plaintiff would examine other 8 witnesses, who were related to the case. This will be 2 appointments needed.

The defense lawyer would examine 6 eyewitnesses. There will be 2 appointments needed.

Due to many document evidences, both parties told together that they would examine document evidences again on 14 October 2014.

14 October 2014

Pre-trial evidence examination

At Dusit Kwaeng Court, the court allowed the defense lawyer and the attorney to examine each other’s document evidence. If there had been some agreement, there would properly no need to examine some witness. But neither of both parties could accept each other’s facts, it’s necessary to examine every witness.

However, the court didn’t testify any witness on this day because the witness could not come to testify at Dusit Kwaeng Court.

The Verdict

21 September 2015

Verdict of the Supreme Court

The Dusit Kwaeng Court concluded that the announcement of the NCPO No. 29/2014 dated 24 May 2014, which sanctions any individual who was summoned by the announcement of the NCPO No. 1-3/2014 and 5-6/2014, is a retrospective order which specifically effects only those individuals named in the summon orders. However, according to the principle of criminal law, the law cannot be retroactive and cannot be drafted to negatively affect specific persons. The District Court of Dusit therefore did not enforce the announcement of the NCPO No. 29/2014, and sentenced the defendant who defied the summon order over a charge of disobeying the authorities under section 368 of the Criminal Code which resulted in the defendant’s liability for THB 500 fine.

The defendant argued that defying the summon order of NCPO was his lawful right to oppose the coup by the NCPO, which the defendant believes it was the unlawful coup, This is also the exercise of the right to protect the constitution specified in the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2550 (2007) as well as the right to freedom of thought as written in the Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which Thailand is one of the signatory states to such covenant. Nevertheless, the court had later rejected the defendant’s argument because the Article 47 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (Interim) B.E. 2557 (2014) has marked that all announcements and orders of the NCPO are considered lawful, constitutional and final.

Trial observation record

Additional Information

Reference

Skip to Top

Case

Summary

Primary links