- Important case
Thanet: criticized government and army on Facebook
Latest Update: 27/02/2021
Defendant
Thanet
Case Status
Judgment / End of trial
Case Started
2015
Complainant / Plaintiff
No information
Table of Content
Tanet, a political activist, was arrested and charged under Section 116 and Computer Crimes Act Section 14(3) for posting picture, message, opinion and sharing other people's Facebook post causing damage to the government and the army. During the provisional detention, the authorities did not specified which post led to the charge.
Defendant Background
Tanet is a political activist who always join the political movement. Before he was arrested in this case, he join the trip with Democracy Education group to examine the corruption scandal in the construction process of Ratchapakdi Park on 7 December 2015. He is also a motercycl taxi driver.
Offense
Article 116 Criminal Code
Allegation
The police officers gave information to the press that the accusation of Tanet was using Facebook to convey anti-government message as well as army and other dignitaries. The document requesting for provisional detention sumtting to military court stated that the accused posted pictures and messages and shared his own opinion and others which cause a damage to government and army. But the document does not yet stated specific post or content.
Circumstance of Arrest
12 December 2015
Matichononline reported that Police investigation officers of Crime Suppression Division submits a written affidavit to court in order to obtain an arrest warrant for Tanet, an additional suspect on a case related to violation of Article 112, 116 of Criminal Code and Computer Crime Act 2007.
13 December 2015
Undercover officers from an unknown department arrested Tanet at Sirinthorn hospital while he was receiving a treatment for intestinal infection. More specifically, two visiting friends of Tanet claimed that they saw an officer took Tanet into custody while he was waiting for an intestinal operation.
During the arrest, the officers did not state their names or department, where they intended to take Tanet to and what were his charges. They also failed to show an arrest warrant while taking him into custody.
Facebook user, Piyarat Chongthep, posted messages about Tanet that after Thanet know about the arrest warrant, he deemed that Tanet was not trying to flee and was in fact cool and calm. Tanet believed that he could prove his innocence therefore he intended to surrender himself. Piyarat further stated that the officers and Tanet took the elevator down from 7th floor together. They were seen leaving the building by a private yellow-green taxi without a number plate and windows were covered by papers.
Nevertheless, Police General Sriwara, a deputy commander of the Royal Thai police gave a contradicting statement about the arrest process, “The arrest was not made directly from the patient’s bed as widely claimed on social media. The officers had an arrest warrant with them. The suspect was taken into custody while he was paying for the hospital bill and manifested the intention to flee. Every detail is supported by an evidence.”
Subsequently, Piyarat provided another statement, “While a deputy commander mentioned that Tanet manifested the intention to flee, in reality, Tanet came to the hospital when he was sick and without any money, any communication devices, not even a pair of shoes. He was carried to the hospital in an emergency situation. Even though I was not at the scene of arrest but Tanet contacted me from the patient room using hospital’s telephone. Therefore, it is more plausible that the arrest was made at patient’s bed not at the hospital cashier like the police claimed.”
Trial Observation
Black Case
273/2559
Court
Criminal Court
Additional Info
Reference
13 December 2015
Tanet was arrested from Sirinthorn hospital.
14 December 2015
Siriwit Seritiwat, a friend of Tanet, together with Thai Lawyer for Human Rights submitted a habeas corpus writ petition according to Section 90 of Thai Criminal Procedure Code to th Criminal Court requiring Tanet to be released forthwith unless there is a lawful ground for his detention. The case was registered as Sor.98/2558 (ษ.98/2558)
The lawyer provides an argument for a writ of habeas corpus doubting the legality of the arrest when the officers neither revealed their identities nor their department. The arrest warrant from court were also not shown at the scene, hence, the criminal process was not made according to the Criminal Procedure Code. For the fact that the offence was not committed in the officer’s presence or within his view, the arrest may not be made without an arrest warrant.
On the same day, a friend of Tanet was contacted by the officer from 11th Infantry Military base on Nakornchaisri road at Dusit district, Bangkok that he could bring over some medicine for Tanet. However, he was not allowed to visit or communicate with Tanet.
15 December 2016
Thai Lawyers for Human Rights reported that the Criminal Court ordered a dismissal of a habeas corpus writ petition. It provided that Siriwit, who submitted the writ, only obtained hearsay evidence demonstrating the detail of the incident from another friend. There was insufficient evidence to prove that Tanet was illegally taken into custody. In addition, the writ contained the statement showing that Tanet had displayed an intention to surrender after he saw a copy of an arrest warrant from a friend’s mobile phone. Court confers that this detail was significant as it contradicted to the assumption that Tanet was taken into custody in an illegal manner.
16 December 2016
Siriwat went to the Criminal Court at Ratchadapisek road to submit the second habeas corpus writ petition according to Second 90 of the Criminal Procedure Code requiring the immediate release of Tanet. His argument extended the fact claimed by the officers that the arrest was made legally. In reality, Tanet was not immediately transferred to the nearest police station or the office of the investigator after the arrest. Instead, he was detained for four days without being informed about his charges, the rights as a suspect that he could remain silent and the right to have a legal representative. Moreover, an arrest warrant was also not displayed on scene.
17 December 2016
For the second time, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights reported that the court ordered second dismissal of a habeas corpus writ petition. The court justified the dismissal by affirming that the procedure used during the actual arrest process was prescribed by law as provided by NCPO order no. 37/2557 . This order extended the jurisdiction of military court to cover offences related to lese majeste and national security cases. It further made reference to the order of the head of the NCPO no.3/2558 that bestowed the power upon the officers to legally detain the suspect for 7 days. Tanet was therefore legally arrested and detained according to the said procedure.
18 December 2016
Colonel Burin Tongprapai, a judge advocate staff, took Tanet to the Royal Thai Police’s Crime Suppression Division in order to press charges against him as well as to host a press conference. The officer stated that Tanet was an accused of the warrant from the military court no. 64/2558. He was working as a motorcycle taxi driver and frequently participated in political activities. His crimes include: using Facebook to convey anti-government message as well as army and other dignitaries. Based on these facts, he had violated Article 116 of the Thai Criminal Code and Computer Crime Act. However, the charge was not pressed on the Article 112.
At 14.00, the officers from Crime Suppression Division together with Colonel Burin transferred Tanet to military court in order to apply for a 12-day detention order. At about 15.00, Siriwit and Tanet’s father arrived at the court but the officers did not allow them inside. After the negotiation, the officer allowed the father to enter and attend the trial while others were waiting outside.
Inside a courtroom, the inquiry officers’ permission stated a detail about the complaints related to the suspect’s Facebook posts, opinions and shared messages deemed to damage government and army’s reputations. The complaint was initiated by General Wijarn Jottang without describing further details about the content of the posts.
Subsequently, Tanet’s lawyers filed a petition calling oppose the provisional detention of Tanet due to his poor health condition and his lack of attempt to flee. Military court ordered the detention for 12 days while stating, “the request of investigation officers to detain the suspect is reasonable.”
The lawyer requested a release with 400,000 THB bail. Later, military court settles a bail amount at 100,000 THB. Tanet was then released from Bangkok Remand Prison.
16 May 2018
The court ordered defense lawyer to revoke its key witnesses which are Gen.Udomdej Sitabutr, a former army chief and Gen. Paiboon Khumchaya, a former Justice minister. The court also ordered lawyer to cut off the important evidences regarding corruption inspection of Rajabhakti park.
In the view of defense lawyers, the cut of witnesses and evidences will affect to the right to fair trial of the defendant. The lawyer then filed a petition requesting for the change of the presiding judge. The court then indefinitely postponed the examination of witnesses and evidences to await the appointment of a new judge.
In the view of defense lawyers, the cut of witnesses and evidences will affect to the right to fair trial of the defendant. The lawyer then filed a petition requesting for the change of the presiding judge. The court then indefinitely postponed the examination of witnesses and evidences to await the appointment of a new judge.