Andy Hall: The Aljazeera Interview Case
Latest Update: 25/04/2018
Defendant
Andy Hall
Case Status
Judgment / End of trial
Case Started
2013
Complainant / Plaintiff
Natural Fruit Company Ltd. is a company that produces pineapple products and is part of Nat Group. In 2012, Natural Fruit supplied juice concentrate for Finnish retailers SOK, Kesko and Tuko Logistics private label juices (produced by Finnish VIP-Juicemaker Oy).
The Owner of Natural Fruit Wirat Piyapornpaiboon is the elder brother of the former labour minister and general secretary of the Democratic Party Chalermchai Sri-On. Natural Fruit is a powerful company in Thailand’s pineapple industry as the owner is the President of the Thai Pineapple Industry Association TPIA. TPIA represent over 60 pineapple companies in Thailand.
source : Finwatch.org
Table of Content
Andy Hall was charhded with Criminal Defamation by means of publication for the interview he gave to Al Jazeera journalist while he was in Myanmar. The Natural Fruit Company which was a prosecution claimed that in the interview Andy said that the company committed series of Human Rights violation such as confiscated passport of migrant workers, used child labour and pay wage under minimum wage provided by the law. According to the company Andy statement negatively effected its reputation and caused the lost in business profit in 2013.
In October 2014, the Court of the First Instance dismissed the charge on the ground of missconducted in interogation process. This case happen abroad therefore it require involvement of public prosecutor in the interogation process. However, the public prosecutor did not taking part in the interogation of this case. The company later appeal the case to the Court of Appeal. In September 2015, the Court of Appeal affirmed verdict of the Court of the First Instance dismissed charge against Andy Hall. The company later appeal the case to the Supreme Court. In November 2016, the Supreme Court affirmed the verdict didmissed Andy Hall case.
Defendant Background
Andy Hall worked for Finnwatch, a Finnish civil society organizations focusing on corporate responsibility, as
an independently contracted research coordinator.
Offense
Article 326 / 328 Criminal Code
Allegation
Between an unspecified date at approximately the beginning of 2013 during the day, and 8 July 2013 during the day, Hall gave interview to the reporter where images and sound were recorded in Myanmar.
Parts of the interview has created damage to Natural Fruit Co. Ltd., by falsely accusing the injured party’s factory violating human rights, employing child labourers and paying labourers less than legal minimum wage.
Myanmar workers claimed their passports were unlawfully confiscated. They said they were forced to work overtime and there were many times when money was deducted from their salaries without rational reason. The Natural Fruit workers also told the defendant that working at the injured party’s fruit producing factory was like hell. All these acts are deemed to impair the reputation of Natural Fruit Co. Ltd., and to have the company held up to scorn as well as hatred.
source : AndyHall.wordpress.com
Circumstance of Arrest
No information
Trial Observation
No information
Black Case
2051/2557
Court
Phra Khanong Provincial Court
Additional Info
No information
Reference
No information
18 June 2014
Public prosecutor filed charge against Hall before the Phra Khanong Provincial court.
2 September 2014
Witness Examination for the Prosecution
The Phra Khanong Provincial Court scheduled for the examination of witnesses for the prosecution at 9.30 a.m. and ordered to examine 2 witnesses
As Hall is a foreigner, the court provided him an interpreter. In a courtroom, there were representatives from Finnwatch, International Center for Trade Union Rights (ICTUR), Embassy of Finland, and British Embassy observing the case.
The first witness for the prosecution Kachin Komneyawanich, the attorney-in-fact of the Natural Fruit Company
Kachin testified that the defendant gave an interview to an Al Jazeera journalist that Natural Fruit Company which operates a tinned pineapple business did not pay wages in line with the law, confiscated passports from migrant workers, and unfair deductions and charges from salaries. The defendant also told the journalist that the factory is like a sweatshop. This statement is challenged and is perceived to damage the company’s reputation.
The second witness for the prosecution Pol.Lt. Boonlai Chaitip, an inquiry official of Bangna Police Station
Pol.Lt. Boonlai testified that Kachin notified him of the case and then he documented a daily record. After that he sent the record to his commander to examine. His commander ordered to send the notice to the British Embassy.
On 28 September 2013, the accused met him but the accused claimed that the interpreter had poor translation so the accused left without receiving any allegations.
Later when acknowledged that the accused gave an interview in Burma, Pol. Lt. Boonlai made a matter of record to the Attorney-General and then the Attorney-General sent back a notice that it was a criminal offence outside the state, there must be a public prosecutor participating in interrogation process.
When he made an investigation again, the public prosecutor did not work with him because the state prosecutor was occupied with government duty. However, the public prosecutor examined the matter of record and gave an additional suggestion. Finally, he summarized a brief that it should be prosecuted then he sent the brief to the state prosecutor.
3 September 2014
Examination of witness for the prosecution
The Phra Khanong Provincial Court set to continue with witnesses examination. Hall told the court that the court interpreter produced bad translation and asked the court to provide a new interpreter. The court agreed with the defendant so the court procedure must be postponed.
4 September 2014
The Phra Khanong Provincial court continued the witnesses examination. The procedure started at 9.30 a.m. and there were 6 witnesses for the prosecution to be examined today. The court also provided a new interpreter to Andy.
The third witness for the prosecution Sukij Kuitkong, an academic from the Phrachuab Kriri Khan Provincial Office of Labour Protection and Welfare
Sukij testified that his office received a complaint regarding problems in the Natural Fruit factory so he went to examine the factory. He discovered some problems such as compulsory overtime and unfair deductions and charges from salaries.
In case of passport confiscation, he cannot affirm whether the action happened because he joined the factory’s examination from time to time.
The forth witness for the prosecution Panun Panutat, a social security official
Panun testified that if the number of workers change, the factory must notify a social security office in order to reduce the number of insured individuals. The social security office will examine whether employers follow the appropriate process. If there is any informal employment, the office might not find any errors and this might become a cause that employers will not notify on deduction for social security contribution from employers.
Panan also testified that the word, “the factory is like a sweatshop”, was not true because she has visited the factory and found that the working environment in the factory was in good conditions. This factory was well-known and provincial officials always invited official visitors to visit the factory.
The fifth witness for the prosecution Nawin Sansupa, a foreman at the Natural Fruit Company
Nawin testified that the conditions of the factory of the Natural Fruit Company is good. There is no passport confiscation, no payroll deductions, and no compulsory overtime work. In case of payroll deductions for electricity bills from workers’ rented houses, it depends on the determination between each worker and the factory.
Nawin testified that the conditions of the factory of the Natural Fruit Company is good. There is no passport confiscation, no payroll deductions, and no compulsory overtime work. In case of payroll deductions for electricity bills from workers’ rented houses, it depends on the determination between each worker and the factory.
Nawain also testified that the word “hell” was a negative word and the Natural Fruit factory was not a sweatshop. During his employment with the company, there was never any employment of children under the age of 18. In case of migrant workers who worked here, they had to hold a work permit. However, he did not affirm whether every migrant worker had a work permit or not because it was a matter of the company.
The sixth witness for the prosecution Chairit Thongrod, an expert on researches and research methodologies
Chairit testified that he has never conducted a research on migrant workers or human right issues; however, a researcher must collect data from both the administrative level and practitioner level in order to conduct research. Although a set of questions for the administrative level and practitioner level is different, it should be relevant. In addition, the data analysis must refer to former research for creditability. A researcher must also be ethical in concealing the name of company which is a case study.
The seventh witness for the prosecution Prathum Kittakerng, a member of Thai Pineapple Industry Association
Prathum testified that she knew this lawsuit because Thai Pineapple Industry Association has asked the Natural Fruit Company for withdrawing the case. However, the company denied this. Although she is one of a member of Thai Pineapple Industry Association, she did not give any opinion on this issue and she stated that she did not know the reason the association wanted the company to withdraw the case.
The eighth witness for the the prosecution Sumonman Leeteera, a nearby entrepreneur
Sumonman testified that he knew the joint prosecutor for a long time and has heard the rumour that the factory was like a sweatshop. In addition, new job applicants have always commented that the factory of the joint prosecutor was a sweatshop and this word had a negative connotation.
5 September 2014
Examination of witness for the prosecution
The Phra Khanong Provincial court continued the witnesses examination. In the morning, it was the examination for the prosecution. There were observers from many organizations such as Embassy of Finland, International Organization for Migration (IOM), and 4-5 other organizations.
The ninth witness for the prosecution an accountant of the Natural Fruit Company
An accoun testified that every worker was treated in the same way. Both Thai and migrant workers received the same welfare.
An accoun testified that every worker was treated in the same way. Both Thai and migrant workers received the same welfare.
Regarding passport confiscation, the allegations are false because the company just took workers’ passports to extend the work permits and the company will return their passports to them when the company received all the passports from officials.
After Hall launched the report, the company’s circulation declined and the business profits in 2013 also reduced. Thus, the witness believed that Hall’s report disclosure and press conference affected to the company.
The tenth witness for the prosecution Wirat Piyapornpaiboon, a broad member of the Natural Fruit Company
Wirat testified that the defendant’s report was a cause of reduction in company income. Many third parties such as Thai Frozen Foods Association and the Pineapple Industry Association pressed him to withdraw the lawsuit. The report also made people afraid of applying for a job at his factory.
It was not true that the factory of the Natural Fruit Company was a sweatshop because the company won an award in the provincial level as a model company. Furthermore, the Burmese Minister of Labour also visited the factory in 2010.
Wirat also made a statement that there was filming in front of the company without allowance and he did not affirm whether interviewees were the company’s employees.
Wirat was the last witness for the prosecution. After the witness examination for the prosecution finished in the morning, the court scheduled to examine 2 witnesses for the defendant in the afternoon. The court procedure started at 1.45 p.m.
Examination of witnesses for the Defendant
The first witness for the defendant Wayne Hay, Al Jazeera journalist
Hay testified that after he received the summary of the Finnwatch report, he was interested in this issue and presented it to his news agency. The news agency also checked for legal problems.
Hay made a statement that he has interviewed workers in front of the factory and used an interpreter provided by a Thai coordinator. However, the factory did not allow to film so he had to come back then went to interview Hall in Burma. Actually the content of the article is more than the one which was broadcasted because some of content was censored during editing.
Hay also said that he knew Hall because Hall was well-known in labour rights and was also a reliable expert.
The second witness for the defendant Dr.Kritaya Archavanitkul, an academic from Mahidol University
Kritaya testified that according to research methodologies, it was not necessary to collect all samples to conduct a qualitative research. A researcher can collect some.
Furthermore, this research aimed to make a change so it was not need to collect data at the administrative level, similar with collecting data on consumer rights which a researcher can gather only consumers in order to give a reflection to traders or service providers. This kind of research can also reveal the name of the company.
9 September 2014
Examination of witnesses for the defendant
The third witness for the defendant Andy Hall, the defendant testified on his behalf
Hall testified that he has ever worked on migrant worker issues with non-governmental organizations in many areas throughout Thailand before worked as a researcher at Mahidol University, then he conducted the research on working conditions of migrant workers in 3 tinned food factories to Finnwatch, the Finnish non-governmental organization.
For conducting the research, he went to collect data by himself. Two Tuna Factories in Mahachai which were his case studies cooperated with him very well so he was able to collect data from every aspect. However, the factory of the Natural Fruit Company at Pranburi has never given him any cooperation so he collected data from employee’s aspect only.
Later, when the research was revealed to the public, he was accused of civil and criminal defamation by the Natural Fruit Company. For this case, he was prosecuted because of giving an interview to the Al Jazeera journalist in Burma and exposing the Finnwatch report.
Hall also testified that in the process of notifying an accusation to him, there was a suspicious action. The police talked to the telephone all the time and brought the document which indicated that he pleaded the guilty to him to sign but he denied signing.
Hall also answered a prosecutor’s lawyer that the message he gave to Al Jazeera that “working in the factory of the Natural Fruit is like working in a sweatshop” is the message that labours in the factory gave to him.
In case of a lecturer of Mahidol University gave an interview to Channel 3 Thai TV that he, Hall, was only an English teacher, Hall did not affirm that it was true but a research that he has done with Mahidol University can be an evidence.
The forth witness for the defendant Sawit Keawwan, the former president of the State Railway Workers’ Union
Sawit testified that he knew Hall for a long time and had some information on worker problems in the factory. He also asked Wirat, the owner of the Natural Fruit Company, for withdrawing the case because it was acknowledged that there were labour right abuses and these problems may be a cause to obstruct the international trade in the future.
Sawit also testified that consumers have the right to know the production process and the right to have a consumer protection organization to examine whether a company has a legal employment. He knew that Finnwatch is the Finnish consumer protection organization and it was great if the research can make an improvement.
The fifth witness for the defendant Kyaw Zaw Ren, a member of Migrant Worker Rights Network (MWRN)
Kyaw testified that he knew the defendant for a long time and help him conduct a research by being a coordinator and finding interviewees then the defendant would interview by himself.
Kyaw testified that he knew the defendant for a long time and help him conduct a research by being a coordinator and finding interviewees then the defendant would interview by himself.
When Kyaw went to the factory’s dormitory in order to meet workers, he found that the workers looked scared of strangers. They did not talk to him too much. Workers who talked to him were workers under the age of 15 and 18 as well as a foreman.
10 September 2014
Examination of witnesses for the defendant
The Phra Khanong Provincial Court continued examining witnesses for the defendant. The court procedure started at 9.30 a.m. The courtroom was moved from the room number 32 to 11.
The sixth witness for the defendant Dr.Chanin Chalitsarapong, the chairman of Thai Tuna Industry Association
Chanin testified that he knew Finnwatch for 2-3 years when Hall requested to conducted a research on migrant workers in his company on behalf of Finnwatch.
There was an agreement that after the research was done, those who were researched would be able to counter the research and give additional information before the research would be summarized. Meanwhile collected data, Chanin did not know which workers who were picked to interview.
Chanin also testified that some parts of the research damaged his company’s reputation but he brought some information in the research to improve the employment system by being aware of international laws.
Chanin also said that he did not agree with the lawsuit against the researcher. He believed that employers, workers, governments, NGOs and international organizations must cooperate to solve migrant worker problems.
The seventh witness for the defendant Kanyapak Tantipipatpong, the president of Thai Food Processors’ Association
Kanyapak testified that she has already seen the Finnwatch report but not read it yet. On the report launch and press conference day, she also joined the event and everything went normal. After that she knew that Hall was prosecuted.
Kanyapak testified that the Thai Food Processors’ Association had a conversation with the Natural Fruit Company on the lawsuit against Hall but the association cannot talk too much because the Natural Fruit Company is not a member of the association.
The eighth witness for the defendant Sonja Vartiala, the executive director of Finnwatch
Vartiala testified via an interpreter for translation that Finnwatch is a Finnish non-governmental organization with an aim to monitor and promote human rights in countries where corruption rate is high or have a weak labour movement.
For the report that caused the Hall’s lawsuit, it has an aim to survey production process of goods in big supermarkets in Finland such as juice and Tuna.
According to the examination, most of products imported from Thailand. So Finnwatch randomized 3 factories which included the factory of the joint prosecutor to be samples of the research. Then Finnwatch contacted to Hall to conduct the research.
Vartiala also testified that Hall was just a data collector, interviewed workers based on Thai labour laws and other relevant laws while the persons who wrote the report were herself and Henry Purje.
After finished collecting data, Hall sent the 52 pages of working documents, photos and audio records via an email to Vartiala. She and Purje checked the accuracy and wrote the report.
When finished writing the report, she sent back to Hall in order to send to 3 factories’ owners to check the accuracy as well as clarify or improve the report. The directors of two Tuna factories cooperated with them well; however, she, Hall and Purje cannot contact to a director of the joint prosecutor’s factory.
The full report was initially published in Finnish; however, Finnwatch thought that it was necessary to make this issue to be acknowledged broadly. So Finnwatch wrote the summary for executives in English and published online. In addition, Finnwatch held the report launch and press conference in Thailand. The reason why there was Hall’s name in the summary was that Hall was a data collector.
Before the court ordered to take a break in the morning, the court informed that there was an official from British Embassy asked for returning the defendant’s passport because a passport is the property of the state and no one can seize any passports. In addition, the defendant has no intention to flee. So the court already returned the passport to the British Embassy.
In the afternoon, the court continued examining Vartiala, the witness for the defendant. The court procedure started at 2.00 p.m.
Vartiala testified that she knew that the Natural Fruit Company did not directly export its products to Finland but the products came from the Netherlands which were imported from Israel. The joint prosecutor argued that he only asked if the Natural Fruit Company did not directly trade with Finland or not, not ask about the connection.
The Ninth witness for the defendant Ta Lui or Aung Kyaw, an official from Labour Assistance Organization
Aung Kyaw testified via interpreter that he knew that Finnwatch appointed Hall to collect data and interviewed 12 Burmese labours in Thailand. Hall took 1 day and 1 night to conduct an interview by himself and he stayed with Andy all the time of the interview. He confirmed that Mr. Mee Zuu was a Natural Fruit employee and Mr. Mee Zuubrought the other two employees to interview.
The tenth witness for the defendant Aung Kyi, a former employee of the Natural Fruit Company
Aung Kyi testified via interpreter that she worked for the Natural Fruit Company from 2008 until April 21, 2014. The last amount of salary she got was 270 baht a day and the company also deducted her wages for her cost of utilities and a rented house.
Aung Kyi also testified that she knew that a security guard harmed a worker and there were children under the age of 15 working at the factory. In addition, the factory forced workers to work overtime. However when a factory examiner visited the factory, the manager would take children under the age of 15 to a rented house in order to hide the factory examiner.
Aung Kyi also said that the Natural Fruit Company seized workers’ passports and when their passports had to extend, the company would collect money from workers, 150 baht per person and did not return passports to workers.
Aung Kyi also said that the company representatively asked for her ID document from government officials but she had to pay for the fee by deducting from her salary, 500 baht a month. She also got the health insurance card of Pranburi hospital and the hospital would collect medical fees only 30 baht a time. However, some workers did not have health insurance they themselves had to pay medical fees.
After finished examining Aung Kyi, the court asked why every worker did not have social security and asked any representatives from the company to answer this issue. There was a factory employee stood up and asked the court for testifying this issue.
Napaporn Tayong, human resource officer of the Natural Fruit stood outside a witness-stand and testified without swearing an oath that passport were confiscated only for purpose of document processing. After the processing some employee collected their passport back but some left it with the company for convenient since they need to report with the Thai authority every 90 days.
The workers who did not have their passports, they cannot register for social security. For those who did not have social security, the company would make a health insurance for them by taking them to have a physical examination at a public hospital. Those workers who were aliens must pay 1,900 baht each for a fee.
After the court inquired Napaporn, a joint prosecutor’s lawyer made a statement to the court that the foreman who looked after Burmese workers wanted to make an additional statement and the court allowed.
Chopaka Chulcherm, the foreman of Burmese worker stood outside a witness-stand and testified without swearing and oath that she was the foreman who has taken care of Burmese workers since 2002. All the time she has been working at the company, there has never been physical abuses against Burmese workers and the company always talked to workers politely.
Chopaka further stated that the company taking care of the workers in working hour as well as after working hour as well as while workers were sick. Salaries were paid in line with the law. The deduction for social security contribution was legal. She also affirmed that there was no child labour under the age of 15 in the factory.
29 October 2014
Verdict Hearing
The court dismissed the case that a state prosecutor and the joint prosecutions namely Natural Fruit Co. Ltd., prosecuted Hall with a criminal defamation charge because of giving the message that deemed to defame the prosecutor to the Al Jazeera journalist.
The court gave the reason for a dismissal that the first problem to consider in this case is whether the prosecutors have the authority to prosecute or not.
The court judged that the guilt in this case has a penalty due to the Thai law but the action was done outside the state. So it is in the scope of Section 20 of the criminal procedure code of Thailand which provided that Attroney General had assigned public prosecutor to investigate the case with the police.
However the inquiry official investigated the case alone, although the attorney-general appointed the state prosecutor to be responsible for the case. So the interrogation process is unlawful. The case is dismissed.
However the inquiry official investigated the case alone, although the attorney-general appointed the state prosecutor to be responsible for the case. So the interrogation process is unlawful. The case is dismissed.
No cause for considering other problems.
After the dismissal of the case, a defendant’s lawyer revealed that the prosecutor was able to appeal the case. However, if the court has a final judgment, the prosecutor cannot appeal the case again because the statute of limitation expires.
Verdict
No information