Nattapol: Sprayed on the Entrance Sign of the Criminal Court

24 May 2015
 

The Manager Online reported that police of Phaholyothin Police Station, together with military from the First Infantry Battalion inspected the official signage of the Court of Justice and of the Criminal Court on Ratchada Road after someone had spray-painted them with an alphabet “A” in a circle in black color which was similar to a symbol of anarchy.

Bawornsak Tawipat, a spokeperson of the Office of the Court of Justice revealed that the case had been reported to the police. With regard to the contemp of court charge Bawornsak said that the court will take a consideration whether to proceed it or not. At the moment, there was no conclusion whether the act was driven by political motivation or not.
 

25 May 2015

 

The Daily News Online reported that Pol.Col.Panudech Sookwong superintendent of Phaholyothin Police Station provided an update concerning the case that after the investigation officials had inspected footage from CCTV around the Court, they found that the perpetrator was a man who was around 30 years old. The police gathered evidence and had already requested an arrest warrant from the court.

Initailly, two accusation including damage to public property and offences under the Public Cleanliness and Orderliness Act would be pressed. With regard to the suspect, the police had already identified the person but cannot provide further detail for the purpose of the investigation.  

 

26 May 2015

 

The Thai News Agency reported that the police officers of Phaholyothin Police Station had arrested Nattapol, who was suspected of having spray-painted the signage of the Criminal Court. 

 

27 May 2015

 

์After Nattapon had been held at the Phaholyothin Police Station for 2 nights, at 10.30, Nattapol was brought to the Criminal Court where petion for pre-trial detention would be file. Nattapon was later brought to room no. 712 for a hearing for a case concerning the contempt of court.  

 

In the court room number of media were presented. The Court commenced the hearing at 11.00 a.m. A staff from the Administration Office of the Criminal Court testified to the Court that on 24 May 2015, he was informed by security unit that someone had spray-painted two alphabet “A” in a circle in black on the signage of the Criminal Court. It was similar to the symbol used to protest against state authority.

After he was informed the matter he then reported to his supervisor as the act seemed to be a contempt of court. The Criminal Court's staff also report the case to the police at Phaholyothin Police Station. Footage from the CCTV was presented to the police as evidence.

After the testimony of the staff of the Administration Office of the Criminal Court, the Court started questioning Nattapol. Nattapol gave a statement that he did not remember the date of the incident, but remembered that it took place around midnight. Before the incident, he was walking with a spray bottle from his room in Soi Ratchada 32 while listening to music. When he arrived at the overhead walkway, he spray-painted an alphabet “A” in a circle. When he walked pass the signage of the Criminal Court, he spray-painted the same symbol twice on the signage.

Nattapon stated that the symbol was the symbol of the foreign musical band “Anti-Flag’. Nattapol stated further that the reason for him to have done so was because he was angry that there was no progress on the case of his senior colleague who had been shot by a military officer.Nattapon confirm that his act wasn't motivated by politics. Nattapon stated further that he did not intend to spray-paint specifically on the signage of the Criminal Court. If there had been some spray color left, he would have spray painted other places. He also told the court that he did not know that spray-painting the signage of the Criminal Court was a serious offence. He accepted his mistake and stated that he would like to help the court clean up and that he would also like to undertake some community services.

 

The Court repeated the question whether Nattapol’s misconduct was related to a political matter or not? Nattapol affirmed that it wasn't a political driven act. The Court explained to Nattapon that they would decide on the matter of contempt of court in the afternoon. The Court also informed Nattapol that the police had already filed petition for pre-trial detention and ask if he wish to challenge the petition? Nattapon told the court that he has no intention to challenge.  

 

In the afternoon, Nattapol was brought to courtroom around 13.50. Once he was in the courtroom, a court staff member told a corrections official to take Nattapol out as the Court still needed more time to discuss its decision. However, the corrections official stated that Nattapol could remain in the courtroom. The court's decision was read at 4.20 p.m. 

 

The Court found nattapon 's act was discourteous behavior and was a contempt of court and sentenced Nattapol to a month in prison, since Nattapon admitted to his mistake, the Court suspended the sentence for a period of 1 year. The court also ordered Nattapol to report to probation officials four times and ordered probation officials to report the court regarding Nattapon self report.  

 

During the hearing in a contempt of court case Nattapol’s friend seek to rent bail assets from insurrance companies as Nattapon didn't had enought deposit assents worth 90,000 Baht as the court requied. However, insurance companies refused to lease them assets unless the court already hand downed its decision regarding Nattapon's contempt of court case. By the time the court handed out its decision it was too late for Nattapon to filed bail petition thus Nattapon was sent to remand at the Bangkok Remand Prison.  

 

28 May 2015

 

On the night of 27 May 2015, Nattapol’s friends started a fundraising for his bail on Facebook. The fundraising ended in the morning of 28 May 2015, Nattapol’s friends managed to raise 14,000 baht.

After managed to raise the money, Nattapon's friends came to the court in the morning to submit the bail petition. A representative from the first insurance company had agreed that the bail asset would cost 18,000 baht; however, subsequently the company informed Nattapol’s friends that they would not lease their assets due to the fact that it was an important case which was in public interest. The company afriad that if Nattapol had been granted bail, he would have been subjected to some pressure from the community that he might flee, resulting in the losing of the company's assets.

Nattapol’s friends contacted two other companies which had previously asked for the same amount of guarantee but later turned them down for a similar reasons. At the end, the fourth company that they approached agree to lease asset in the sum of 15,000 Baht.

The representative of the company and Nattapon's friends submitted bail petition to the court at 3 p.m. The Court asked for aditional 10,000 Baht cash from Nattapon's friends, in total bail deposit of this case worth 100,000 Baht. At 5.30 p.m. The Court granted bail to Nattapol, he was released from the Bangkok Remand Prison at 21.00.

 

10 July 2015

 

The prosecutors from the Special Office of Prosecutors, Criminal Department 7 filed charges against Nattapol for offences for damaging or degrading property used for public interest under section 360 of the Criminal Code and for scratching, writing, spray-painting or other manners to create a statement on a wall next to the road under section 12, 35, 54, and 56 of the Cleanliness and Orderliness Act.

 

The Prosecutors stated that in the evening of 24 May 2015, before midnight, the defendant spray-painted alphabet “A” in a circle in black color on the signage of the Criminal Court, one at the begining, another at the end of the word "Criminal Court"  This resulted in damage and a devaluing of the the Criminal Court’s signage, which was created for the public interest.

 

14 July 2015
 

Deposition Examination
 

Nattapol went to the Criminal Court together with a friend at 9.00 the court schedule for a deposition examination. The proceeding was commence in a duty judge’s room where public was not allow to access. As such, Nattapol’s friend had to wait outside.

 

In the duty judge’s room in the basement of the Criminal Court, the court’s officer asked Nattapol if he would plead guilty or not guilty. Once he said he will pleaded guilty, the officer gave him a document to sign before the judge called him to ask for his plea. 

 

The Matichon Online reported the deposition examination and the verdict that; 

first, the court read and explained the charge statement and asked if defendant understood his charges. When the defendat said he understood the court then asked for his plea.

After the defendant pleaded guilty, the court found that the defendant's action was a divisible offence. The Court sentenced the defendant to 2 years in prison for damaging public property, as the defendant pleaded guilty the sentence was mitigated by half. The Court sentenced the defendant to a year prison without probation.

 

After listen to the verdict, Nattapol gave an interview to the media that the verdict was truly disappointing. At first, he expected the Court to suspend his sentence and fine him; he had prepared 10,000 baht that he had collected from others to pay the fine and only came to the Court with one friend.

 

Before the decision to imprison him without suspension, Nattapol had planned to help his senior colleagues working in the forestry area in Nakhonsrithammarach Province. However, once the Court sentenced him to a year of imprisonment, he had to postpone his plan.

 

“I would like to live in the forest for a month, help them observe the plants and live a life. Now I cannot go anymore” Jayjay said.

 

16 July 2015

 

Around 2 p.m. lawyers and Nattapol’s friends submitted petition for bail to the Criminal Court by using freedom insurance in the amount of 100,000 Baht. A petition provided that Nattapol had an honest job, did not have a flight behaviour, and had a duty to support his family members (grandfather and grandmother).

 

Around 5 p.m. the court ordered to release Nattapon on bail. 

 

13 October 2015

The Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) reported that Nattapol had submitted an appeal to the Court of Appeal. He requested the Court to reverse or amend the verdict of the Court of First Instance that sentenced him to 2 years in prison and reduced to one year without suspension. Nattapon asked the Court of Appeal to dismiss the case or suspend his sentence.

In his appeal, Nattapon stated that his act did not damaged the property since the signage could be used normally. The spray-paint made the signage dirty but it could be clean. 

 

Furthermore, the signage was not property used or created for public use/interest as such property was not directly useful for people. It was however, built to be part of the government office. Although government office was public property, it was not used or created for public interest according to criminal law as the prosecutors had indicted.

 

Even though the defendant pleaded guilty, it did not mean that the court must sentence him. The court had authority to dismiss the case according to section 185 of the Criminal Procedure Code. First paragraph of section 185 states that “If the court believes that the defendant is not guilty, his action does not constitute a criminal offence, the prescription is over, or there is a cause under a law that he does not have to serve a sentence, the court may dismiss the prosecutor and release the defendant. Nonetheless, the court may order a detention of the defendant or a temporary release while the case has not come to an end.

 

The fact that the Court of the First Instance sentenced the defendant to a year in prison without suspension is too harsh and not proportionate to the circumstances of the offense.

 

TLHR also observed that for cases similar to Nattapol’s, the court usually imposes a fine or suspends prison sentences. Moreover, in the preparation of a verdict, the court has an authority to order probation officials to trace behaviour record of the defendant and use it as a cause to mitigate the sentence. It also need to noted that the defendant in this case has never been sentenced to prison but he was sentenced to a year in prison without sentence suspend.

 

8 June 2016

 

Handing down verdict of the Court of Appeal

 

At the room no.905 of the Criminal Court, the court scheduled to hand down a verdict of the Court of Appeal to Nattapon. Nattapon went to the court with his girl friend but did not informed other friend to accompany him. The court began a proceeding around 10.05 a.m.

 

In its verdict the Court of Appeal agree with the Court of the First Instance which sentence Nattapon to a year in prison. The Court of Appeal however make a change with regard the sentence by ordered to suspend prison sentence in a period of 2 years.

 

The Court of Appeal also ordered Nattapon to pay fine in the sum of 9,000 Baht but later reduced to 4,500 Baht due to nattapon's guilty pleaded. The Court of Appeal also ordered Nattapon to report himself to probation officials 3 times a year throught the period of probation as well as ordered Nattapon to complete 12 hours of community service.

After listen to the verdict, Nattapon revealed that for the past year he lived his life normally working and singing. Nattapon also mentioned that he is now runnig a hamburger store in Ratchayothin area.

Nattapon further stated that even the case was not effect his daily life too much but he also have a concern over direction of the verdict. 

Since the Court of Appeal suspended his sentence, Nattapon said he was please with the Court of Appeal's decision and he was also happy that he won't have to serve in prison.