Ministry of Energy vs M.L.Kornkasiwat
Latest Update: 11/01/2017
Defendant
M.L.Kornkasiwat Kasemsri
Case Status
Judgment / End of trial
Case Started
2014
Complainant / Plaintiff
No information
Table of Content
15 August 2014, Ministry of Energy filed a case against M.L.Kornkasiwat, an energy academia, under defamation charge for posting message on facebook that the price of diesel fuel in Laos is lower that in Thailand.
Defendant Background
ML Kornkasiwat Kasemsri serves as Director of the energy policy research centre of Rangsit University. As an energy reform activist, he uses a Facebook Page “Talk with Mhom Korn” as a medium to continuously express his personal opinion towards an energy issue.
Offense
Article 14 (1) Computer Related Crime Act, Article 326 / 328 Criminal Code
Allegation
The accused posted a message on his Facebook Page “Talk with Mhom Korn” in terms of implying that the prices of diesel fuel exported to Lao People's Democratic Republic are lower than the price of petroleum products sold in the country. This was deemed to undermine the reputation of the Ministry of Energy.
Circumstance of Arrest
No information
Trial Observation
No information
Black Case
อ.5418/2556
Court
Bangkok South Criminal Court
Additional Info
No information
Reference
No information
15 August 2014
ML Kornkasiwat Kasemsri, independent scholar studying in the field of energy, was indicted for defamation by means of publication under Sections 326, 328 of the Criminal Code and Section 14(1) of the Computer-Related Crime Act 2007.
After the Court considered the evidence in a preliminary examination, it saw that there was a cause of action existing. The Court then accepted the case and scheduled the defendant’s deposition examination as well as a witness hearing on 3 November 2014.
3 November 2014
Pre-trial.
Both parties were present at the Court except the defendant’s lawyer since he was representing another case.
The plaintiff submitted a request to produce 8 witnesses at a trial. The defendant asked the Court to recall three of them who were tried in the preliminary hearing for further cross-examination. However, the Court allowed only two witnesses to be further cross examined. For the plaintiff’s side, there were 10 witnesses produced in 4 days.
ML Kornkasiwat Kasemsri informed the Court that he would like to produce 26 witnesses but the Court reduced the number to 24, with 9 days given.
ML Kornkasiwat Kasemsri asked the Court if there was a possibility of conducting a trial in absentia as he was unable to attend all trials. The permission was then granted to his request as it saw that the punishment of such offence is a term of imprisonment for not more than 10 years, and also, the defendant already has a lawyer as his representative.
Verdict
No information