Tepha: Defying public assembly act

24 November 2017

Approximately at 8:20 am, members of the Network began the protest march at Baan Bang Ling community. They were wearing green T-shirts bearing the phrase “No Coal” and holding green flags in their hands. Military and police officials, both in uniform and plain-clothes were following and taking photos of the march. On that day, the protesters walked for 20 kilometers and stopped at Baan Krong Ee-Tum, Tepha district, Songkhla province to stay the night near Sakom beach.
 

On the same day, the Tepha Police Station issued an announcement ordering the protesters to comply with the 2015 Public Assembly Act. It accused approximately 20 villagers, who were members of the Network participating in the march, of breaching the Act because of their failure to notify the Tepha district police superintendent at least 24 hours prior to the beginning of their assembly. The announcement ended by ordering the protesters to comply with the Act and stop their activity within that day. The announcement was signed by the Tepha district police superintendent Pol. Col. Weerawut Sannakij.
 

25 November 2017

The protesters headed from Baan Krong Ee-Tum, Tepha district to Baan Pak Bang Sakom, Chana district to learn from Chana residents about their experiences of collective struggle against the constructions of Thai-Malaysian gas separation plants and power plants in their community. On the same day, the Songkhla Provincial Police Station issued Surveillant Officer Order No. 891/2017, demanding the protesters to immediately halt their public assembly. The Order stated that the Songkhla police had received an application for extension of the public assembly notification period filed by Ekkachai on 25 November 2017. However, the police refused the application, thereby deeming illegal their public assembly. The Order justified the refusal by claiming that the march organizers breached the Public Assembly Act by not notifying the competent authorities at least 24 hours in advance before the protest began. Therefore, they ordered the protesters to end the march by 6 pm of that day.
 

27 November 2017

The protesters left Baan Suan Krong to Mueng district, Songkhla province. They planned to meet with other allied civil society networks to prepare a plan for submitting the letter to the PM on the following day. On the way to their destination, they encountered at least 50 police officials consolidating their force to block the march. At the same time, several soldiers were also closely observing the march. At around 1 pm, riot-control police officers formed a line on the Songkhla-Natawee street alongside Songkhla Rajabhat University, facing Chana district, Songkhla province. The troop occupied the street’s leftmost lane and only allowed vehicles to pass through by using the right lanes.
 

Shortly after, the protesters continued their march and stopped near where the authorities were while keeping a distance of approximately five meters. Representing the Network, Ekkachai approached the authorities and negotiated with Pol. Col. Prapat Sri-Anan, the Songkhla Police deputy chief; and Col. Utid Anantanond, the 42nd Military Circle deputy commander. Pol. Col. Prapat asked Ekkachai to lead the protesters back to the Songkhla Provincial Office of Informal Education, claiming that the authorities would follow them to facilitate the march and provide them with food. He justified the police’s blocking of protesters by raising their concerns that it may caused chaos. Ekkachai then demanded to see an official order declaring this forbidden area as a “special zone” from the two officers. However, Col. Utid responded that he was invoking his authority under Section 44 of the Interim Constitution of 2014. Ekkachai asked the authorities if they could allow him to consult with other march organizers and let the protesters pass through to eat their food at the Psychiatric Hospital as planned. However, Pol. Col. Prapat agreed to the former request but turned down the latter.
 

Ekkachai asserted that the protesters strongly intended to meet with the Prime Minister. However, Pol. Col. Prapat responded that they must meet with the Prime Minister’s secretary first. However, when Ekkachai asked if they could sit where they were to wait for the secretary, the Songkhla Police deputy chief refused and told him that the protesters must remain on the pavements, not on the street. Ekkachai informed the police that he would have to negotiate with his fellow protesters first. The deputy police then asked, ‘Don’t you see how dangerous it is when a car drives by?’ The rhetorical question prompted Ekkachai to retort, “Please stop slandering us. To be honest, the military officials are the ones blocking the street. You must acknowledge this fact, so that we do not have to face allegations of wrongdoings that they did not actually commit.’ Finally, the Songkhla police deputy chief insisted that the protesters should sit on the pavements and asked if he could speak with them.
 

After the conversation ended, the protesters began to sit down on the road.  Pattiharn, one of the march organizers, stepped in front of the crowd and read aloud the responsibilities and duties of public assembly participants according to the Public Assembly Act. He also added a comment that the Network’s march was a peaceful, unarmed, and legitimate assembly. Roughly 20 minutes later, security officials ordered the protesters to lay down in the street. As they complied with the order and laid down, some of them cried out, “I am hungry!” Many protesters also questioned the legitimacy of this order to suppress their exercise of freedom of assembly, stating that they would not have protested if they were not in such a dire living condition.
 

Approximately at 2:50 pm, one protester fainted. Medical officials intervened and helped provide first aid. Having witnessed the event, other protesters ran out of patience, stood up, and formed a line. They declared that they would continue the march, so that they could finally eat. It took the protesters around two minutes to break out of the barricades set up around them by the security officials. Reportedly, one more protester fainted as they were struggling against the authorities.
 

Successful in breaking out of the blockade, the protesters gathered together and had lunch at the Psychiatric Hospital at 3 pm. One hour later, the riot-control police deployed its force and predatorily waited for the protesters at Kaoseng road curve on Chalatad street. Once the protesters reached the road curve, they were confronted with the police force. In the wake of this clash, 16 protesters were arrested; one of whom is a 16-year-old boy.  During this operation, a plainclothes police officer live-broadcasted the protest on his Facebook account. It was also reported that Mustarsheedeen Waba or “Bae-Mus,” one of the protesters, had been taken away by the police during the clash between the two sides. Neither could he be found at any police station nor contacted by phone. Still, at night, the Network received the information that he was safe and did not get arrested by the authorities.
 

The 16 protesters were taken to the Songkhla Provincial Police Station and thereupon asked questions about their personal lives. They remained detained in police custody for one night while many of their fellow protesters camped out in front of the police station to give them moral support.
 

On the same day, approximately at 1 pm, Pol. Lt. Col. Supakit Prachantasen, Officer-in-Charge of the Songkhla Provincial Police Station, filed a request to the Songkhla Provincial Court, demanding an injunction against the protest march. The letter of request indicated that more than 100 members of the Network began their march under the leadership of Ekkachai, or Defendant No. 1, approximately at 9 am on 24 November 2017. Some protesters reportedly rode a car or a motorcycle while using a megaphone or an amplifier to disseminate information regarding their campaign. On 28 November 2017, Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-Ocha would chair a mobile cabinet meeting at the Songkhla Campus of Rajamangala Srivijaya University of Technology. The document stated that the protesters aimed at marching to the university to submit a complaint letter to the Prime Minister in person. Reportedly, they also wanted to organize an awareness-raising event to increase public knowledge about civil and community rights around the area.
 

At 6 pm, Ekkachai, one of the march organizers, submitted a notification of public assembly dated on 24 November 2017 to the Tepha district police superintendent. Upon receiving the notification, the police superintendent provided Ekkachai with a summary of the public assembly. As the protesters were waiting for an order from the surveillant officer, they decided to continue marching from Pak Bang sub-district, Tepha district, Songkhla province to Mueng district, Songkhla province.
 

On 25 November 2017, approximately 1:30 pm, Ekkachai submitted an application for extension of the public assembly notification period to the Songkhla police chief in compliance with Article 12, Clause 3 of the Public Assembly Act. At 6 pm, the Police Chief refused the application, claiming that the protest march was not organized according to the prerequisite steps laid out under the Public Assembly Act. He then issued Order No. 891/2017, demanding the protesters to discontinue their public assembly immediately by 6 pm of that day. Subsequently, the police superintendent of Chana district forwarded this Order to Ekkachai.
 

On 26 November 2017, the protesters marched past Baan Suan Grong, Na Tub sub-district, Chana district, Songkhla province and reached Mueng district. In light of Clause 2 of Article 19 of the Public Assembly Act, the Songkhla police chief must serve as the surveillant officer for this march because the protesters had walked across several areas in Songkhla province. The Songkhla police chief assigned Pol. Lt. Col. Supakit, Deputy Police Superintendent (Inquiry), to be an officer-in-charge of the Songkhla Provincial Police Station. He therefore had the power to file the injunction request to the Songkhla Provincial Court.
 

Allegedly, the protesters did not follow the necessary legal procedures since the beginning of the march. According to Article 10 of the Public Assembly Act, whoever intends to stage a public assembly shall notify a police superintendent in their area at least twenty four hours prior to the assembly. In this case, the competent officer would be the police superintendent of Tepha district. However, Ekkachai only notified the relevant authority when the march had already begun. Moreover, the protesters failed to wait for the police superintendent to consider their request to use public space for the assembly. They decided to continue the march without official permission, thereby violating Article 17 of the Act. On 25 November 2017, Ekkachai submitted the application for extension of the public assembly notification period to the Songkhla Police Chief. However, the Police Chief turned down the application and issued Order No. 891/2017 banning their protest activities altogether. Still, the protesters, again, failed to comply with this Order. Their disobedience of the Order issued by the authorities responsible for surveilling and overseeing public assembly constituted a violation of Article 21 of the Act. The deputy police superintendent also asserted that the protesters had a tendency to wield violence during their public assembly, especially when they reached the area where the mobile cabinet meeting would be held. Allowing the march to continue could therefore jeopadize the safety of ordinary citizens and cause public disorder in the area.
 

The injunction request also mentioned that the protesters could have submitted the complaint letter to the Prime Minister via many other channels and hosted an awareness-raising event elsewhere in a more appropriate time and a lawful manner. From 27 to 28 November 2017, Prime Minister and Head of the NCPO Gen. Prayuth Chan-Ocha would be chairing the mobile cabinet meeting at the Songkhla Campus of Rajamangala Srivijaya University of Technology. The Songkhla provincial police was responsible for ensuring the safety of both the Prime Minister and the meeting venue. Had the protesters continued their activities, they might jeopadize public security and cause  disorder during the cabinet meeting. For this reason, the Songkhla provincial police asked the Court to grant an injunctive relief banning the protest march and ordering the protesters to stop their activities within the given timeframe that the Court saw fit.
 

Later, Pol. Lt. Col. Supakit Prachantasen, who filed the injunction request, informed the Court as a witness that he was the officer-in-charge substituting the police superintendent of Songkhla Provincial Police Station because the actual superintendent was on an overseas mission at the time. He reported to the Court that on 24 November 2017, approximately at 9 am, Ekkachai led a demonstration of more than 100 members of the Network in Pak Bang sub-district, Tepha district, Songkhla province. Allegedly, the protesters were riding in approximately ten cars and motorcycles; they were also using amplifiers, campaign posters, flags, and pamphlets to pass on information regarding their campaign and protest activities. Pol. Lt. Col. Supakit also stated that the protesters aimed at marching to Rajamangala Srivijaya University of Technology to submit a complaint letter to Prime Minister and Head of the NCPO Gen. Prayuth who would be chairing a mobile cabinet meeting there on 28 November 2017.
 

What’s more, Pol. Lt. Col. Supakit claimed that the protest was unlawful because the organizers did not follow appropriate legal procedures required under the Public Assembly Act. The authorities were only notified of the protest on 24 November 2017 at approximately 6 pm when the protest had already begun. Shortly after, upon receiving the notification, the police superintendent of Tepha district provided the protesters with a summary of the public assembly. While the protesters were waiting for an order from the  surveillant officer, they decided to continue marching from Pak Bang sub-district, Tepha district, Songkhla province to Chana district, Songkhla province without official permission. On 25 November 2017, Ekkachai, who led the protest, submitted the application for extension of the public assembly notification period to the Songkhla Police Chief. However, the Police Chief turned down the application because the protest breached the rules of procedures for organizing public assembly. The authorities confirmed that they had publicly announced this order and directly informed Ekkachai as well as other protesters about it.
 

The RTP has been closely monitoring and consistently reporting on this demonstration. After the leading organizer of the protest submitted the public assembly request to the police superintendent of Tepha district, the superintendent briefed Pol. Lt. Col. Supakit about the details of this protest. Pol. Lt. Col. Supakit then set up a team to investigate into this protest and negotiate with the protesters to stop their activity. Still, the negotiation failed, and the protesters continued to march towards Mueng district, Songkhla province, aiming to gather around the Kaoseng community to eat together around the area.
 

Throughout the march, the Mueng Songkhla chief district officer continually attempted to reach a compromise with the protesters. Before the march began, the Songkhla provincial governor, the Mueng Songkhla chief district officer, and the Songkhla provincial police chief also tried to meet with the protest organizers for the same purpose. However, the protesters declined all their meeting requests. Furthermore, the Office of the Prime Minister’s Permanent Secretary, which was responsible for receiving reports of grievances, informed the protest organizers that they were willing to take their complaints. Still, the organizers rejected the offer and insisted that they would only submit the complaint letter to the Prime Minister in person. The protesters allegedly employed signs, posters, and flags with an intention to break apart unity of the society and defame the image of Songkhla province. They allegedly tried to gain more supporters to scale up the protest. If successful, Pol. Lt. Col. Supakit believed that the protest would be more likely to turn violent.
 

Apart from the Network, nine other civil society organizations were also planning to voice their grievances to the Prime Minister. These organizations included an association for rubber tappers, group of fisherfolks, and many others. Most of these groups agreed to send their representatives to negotiate with the authorities; only the Network refused to do so. Moreover, although the security officials had ordered the protesters to stop using signs and flags that symbolized the march, the protesters kept refusing to comply. Supposedly, the protesters could have submitted the complaint letter to the Prime Minister via many other channels and hosted an awareness-raising event elsewhere and in some other time. In other words, they could have conducted their activities in a more lawful manner and in a more appropriate place and time.
 

On 27 and 28 November 2017, the NCPO led a mobile cabinet meeting chaired by the Prime Minister at the Songkhla campus of Rajamangala Srivijaya University of Technology. The Songkhla provincial police was responsible for overseeing the safety of important public officers and the meeting venue. Had they allowed the protest to carry on their activities, they would be regarded as compromising their duties. Therefore, they asked the Court to issue an injunction banning the protest and ordering the protesters to halt their activities within a given timeframe.
 

The Songkhla Provincial Court ruled in favour of the Songkhla provincial police. Since the protest organizers did not notify the relevant authorities on time and was not granted an extension for the notification period, their protest  was considered unlawful under Article 14 of the Public Assembly Act. Although the surveillant officers had informed the protesters to stop the march, the protesters did not follow such an order. The Court thus grants the injunction banning the protest march as the surveillant officers requested.
 

28 November 2017

Daily News Online reported that, approximately at midnight, Pol. Gen. Sriwara Rangsipramanakul, Deputy Commissioner of the RTP, went to Songkhla Provincial Police Station to press charges against 16 protesters. The charges included participating in a public march or procession which impedes the traffic, obstructing a highway or exhibiting activities that damage or may damage vehicles or other individuals, resisting or hindering law enforcement officers in the discharge of his/her official duties, and taking weapons (wooden flag poles) into a public area without good cause.
 

The RTP Deputy Commissioner insisted that inquiry officers must take legal actions against all the 16 protesters with no exception to the 16-year-old boy. Reportedly, all of the defendants denied every charge and promised to submit written testimonies to the authorities.
 

Khaosod Online reported that Pol. Lt. Gen. Ronnasilp Poosara, the chief of the Provincial Police Region 9 (PPR9), stated that the arrest of 16 anti-coal protesters was carried out in a lawful manner. Initially, the protesters were charged with three offences, which did not include breach of the Public Assembly Act. The PPR9 chief maintained that the authorities had appropriately followed the process of law enforcement. They had also tried to ask the protesters to stop the march. According to him, the police arrested was simply made in compliance with the Songkhla Provincial Court’s order. Pol. Lt. Gen. Ronnasilp also revealed that the police will take the protesters to the Court to request the first remand.
 

At 12:00 pm, more than 20 villagers marched to the Songkhla Provincial Court and peacefully gathered there. Their goal was to express their silenced grievances to the NCPO Head and to wait until the 16 detainees were released. While they were waiting, a heavy rain poured down. However, they had nothing to cover themselves since the police had confiscated their raincoats, as well as green signs and flags earlier.
 

Around the same time, inquiry officers took 15 protesters to the Songkhla Provincial Court for a remand. The 16-year-old boy was taken to the Songkhla Juvenile and Family court. Later, the court set the bail at 90,000 THB for each adult protester, amounting to 1,350,00 THB in total. Unable to secure the bail on time, they were detained for one night at Songkhla Central Prison. Meanwhile, the Songkhla Juvenile and Family court set the bail for the 16-year-old boy at 5,000 THB. His lawyer was therefore able to get him temporarily released without delay.
 

29 November 2017

Prachachat Business Online reported that Chanwit Aramsiri, the protesters’ lawyers, filed another request for temporary release, offering to use academic positions of lecturers from Prince of Songkhla University and Thaksin University as bail bonds. At 11:00 am, the Songkhla Provincial Court ruled that it would not grant the release, claiming that academic positions could be used as bail bonds only if they belong to the defendants themselves. As a consequence, the Network, together with the university lecturers, decided to open up a bank account and raised funds from ordinary people.
 

In the afternoon, the lawyer decided to file another request under the same bail condition. The Court eventually granted temporary release of the 15 defendants. At 9 pm, they were released from the Songkhla Central Prison and warmly greeted by their relatives and other members of the Network.


12 December 2017

The hearing of prosecution order was scheduled on this date. According to Thai Rath Online, at 10 am, 15 defendants appeared at the Songkhla Provincial Court to hear the prosecution order. However, a court official informed them that the hearing had been postponed for ten days and the protesters should report back to the Court again on 22 December because the police was unable to finish the dockets.
 

12 January 2018

The hearing of prosecution order was re-scheduled to this date. The Songkhla public prosecutor indicted the 16 protesters.
 

27 December 2018

at 9.00 a.m. the Songkhla Provincial Court scheduled to hear verdict in case of  17 Thepa villagers violating the Public Assembly Act 2015, Public Highway Act article 38, Land Traffic Act article 108, Criminal Code article.

 

At 9.30 a.m. all defendants came to the Court along with Thepa villagers, academics, and journalists at least 50 people to hear the verdict. Today, the Songkhla Provincial Court prepared 2 rooms for hearing the verdict which were the room 309 for the 17 defendants and lawyers and the room 209 to show video conference from the room 309 for Thepa villagers and others.

 

At 10.10 a.m. the Court called each defendant’s name and asked Netipong, the defendant, No. 8 that whether he was punished according to the red case No. 4762/2018 and was imprisoned for 6 months. Netipong accepted it, but actually, it was 11-month imprisonment. The public prosecutor asked the Court for counting the amount of Nethipong’s punishment further from this case. In the last part of accusation identified that Nethipong had previous conviction at the Na Thawi provincial Court and received 6-month punishment but 2-year probation. However, during probation, Nethipong committed the crime intentionally; thus the public prosecutor imposed punishment further from the red case No. 4762/2018 and this case as well.

 

Afterwards, the Court explained that the verdict accounted for 49 pages which divided into the charge, the testimony, the details of witness examination for both defendants and plaintiffs, and the Court’s consideration. The Court read the charge and consideration parts only.

 

For the Court’s consideration, it identified that on 23 November 2017, the Facebook page named “ Stop Songkhla coal-fired power plant ” encouraged Thepa villagers to rally and to send letter toward Gen. Prayut Chan-O-Cha, the head of NCPO and the Prime Minister, having an appointment of cabinet conference at Muang District, Songkhla Province. Before moving toward Muang District, Songkhla Province, at 18.00 p.m. the police told the protesters to notify the public assembly according to the Public Assembly Act. Later on, the protesters stayed overnight at Salaudin Mosque. Meanwhile, Ekkachai, the defendant No. 1, submitted an application  to hold the public assembly and submitted an application for extension of the notification period to the Songkhla Police Chief. However, the Songkhla Police Chief did not allow and ordered to revoke the public assembly.

 

Later on, villagers marched to Muang District, Songkhla Province. When they reached at the gate 2 of Songkhla Rajabhat University, they encountered a company of officers, restricting a crowd by setting barrier on road which was the leftmost lane next to the footpath and opening only right lane, only one path. Afterwards, the protesters went through barrier for having lunch and were arrested at Samila beach. The defendants No. 1-15 and No. 17 were arrested first, and the defendant No.16 were charged later on. There were following points to consider.

 

The first point was that whether Ekkachai, Rungreung, Patiharn, and Direk, the defendants No. 1-4, were promoters and guilty as they did not notify about the public assembly according to the Public Assembly Act. First of all, the Court had to examine that this rally was counted as a public assembly or not. According to Article 4 of the Public Assembly Act, it prescribed that a “Public assembly” means an assembly of individuals in public place so as to express their common petition, support, opposition or opinion on any matter to the public and any individual is able to attend such assembly freely irrespective of whether such assembly composing of public procession or marching. This rally had expression of villagers’ common petition and composed of procession or marching; therefore, this rally was the public assembly.

 

Whether Ekkachai, Rungreung, Patiharn, and Direk, the defendants No. 1-4, were promoters. During attestation, Ekkachai, the defendant No.1 and Patiharn the defendant No. 3 communicated and negotiated with authorities. Also, Ekkachai was the one who notified the public assembly and submitted an application for extension of the public assembly as well.  Thus, Ekkachai and Patiharn were promoters whereas Rungreung, the defendant No.2 and Direk, the defendant No.4 did not appear the fact that the 2 defendants were promoters, but they were promoters according to the definition of the Public Assembly Act.

   
After having examined, Ekkachai, the defendant No.1 and Patiharn, the defendant No.3, were guilty according to Article 10 Paragraph 1 and Article 12 Paragraph 1 as not notifying the public assembly prior to the activity at least 24 hours and not submitting an application for extension, according to the Public Assembly Act, which each of them must be fined 5,000 Baht.

 

The second point was that the 17 defendants possessed long wooden sticks that were one meter in length and 2 centimeters in circumference. The sticks also had sharp tips and flags on top. It was alleged that the defendants intentionally took the sticks into public areas with the purpose of injuring public officials. The fact was that the 17 defendants possessed wooden sticks which were a symbol of marching. The police seized all 34 wooden sticks and considered that the wooden sticks were not weapons. If they were weapons, it must have intention to harm as well, so this charge was dismissed.

 

The third point was that Ekkachai, Rungreung, Patiharn, and Direk, the defendants No. 1-4, who were promoters, did not oversee the public assembly properly, which caused the problems to people who used public highway. Besides, the participants violated the Public Assembly Act, plus refusing to cooperate with the police who were in charge of the public assembly according to the Public Assembly Act. Furthermore, the 17 defendants caused inconvenience for people who used traffic on Songkhla-Na Thawi, and they possessed weapons into the public area without permission, including of impeding the performance of duties.  

 

However, from the Court’s examination, Ekkachai, the defendant No.1 and Partiharn the defendant No.3 were only promoters; thus the Court had to consider that whether both defendants were guilty according to the charge. The fact was that the rally opposing the coal-fired power plant was a form of freedom expression that the 17 defendants performed peacefully without weapons. Therefore, it was the legitimate public assembly according to the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand of 2017. There were several demands which protesters came out and protest peacefully without damages. It did not appear that the defendants did not cooperate with authorities; thus, they were not guilty according to this charge.   

 

The fourth point was that the 17 defendants blocked Songkhla- Na Thawi Road together by gathering and moving other protesters into a traffic area where the protesters sat and laid down in the streets. Their actions might cause danger or damage to vehicles without permission from a traffic officer.

 

Adirek  Jarojwang, a witness for plaintiff, testified that the protesters marched in one row on the side of road whereas Pol.Col Praphat Srianant, the Deputy Commander of Songkhla Provincial Police, Lt.Col Uthit Anantananon, Deputy Commander of the 42nd Military Circle,   Pol.Capt. Tharaphong Yenjai, Pol.Cpl. Kraisang Kanlak, Pol.Snr.Sgt.Maj Sirichai Numnaun, Pol.Snr.Sgt.Maj Decha Kaewamphon were eyewitnesses and testified in a similar way. When the protesters marched until the Songkhla Ratchubat University, the police had blocked on the leftmost side of the road near footpath earlier, opening only the right lane to let cars through. When there was the obstruction which the protesters cannot march further, they therefore sat and laid down. Apart from this, no witness can identify that the protester’s action caused danger or damage to vehicles; therefore, this charge was dismissed.

 

The fifth point was that all 17 defendants together impeded performance of duties who were in charge of the public assembly. The witness for the plaintiff testified that someone pushed and used a wooden stick to hit authorities. Therefore, 4 authorities were little injured. However, all witnesses did not know who used wooden stick to hit the authorities.
Based on the fact that at that time, there were protesters at least 50 people, and if some of them pushed authorities, it did not mean other protesters had intention to harm. Therefore it did not make any sense. Furthermore, before this incident happened, the protesters had attempted to negotiate with officers to let them have meal which they had planned earlier. However, it failed , and villagers waited until the midday which caused resentment toward the authorities which led to harm the authorities finally.

 

Although before having pushed each other, the protesters used an amplifier to communicate, it was just to increase morale which was not a sedition to attack authorities. Thus, it still had doubt that the defendants really impeded and used weapons to attack authorities or not. Thus, it shall give defendants the benefit of doubt according to Article 127 Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Court Procedure Code, but 34 wooden sticks would be seized.

 

The Court sentenced Ekkachai, the defendant No. 1, and Partiharn, the defendant No.3, were guilty according to Article 10 Paragraph 1 and Article 12 Paragraph 1 as not notifying the authority at least twenty four hours prior to begin that public assembly and failing to submit extension of the notification under the Public Assembly Act. Therefore, they shall be fined 5,000 Baht for each person, and other charges were dismissed. After having finished all judicial process, Ekkachai, the defendant No.1, and Partiharn, the defendant No.3 paid fine to the Court and received 1,000 Baht back from being imprisoned during the investigation for 2 days, 500 Baht per day.

The reason of this case happened owing to the 4-day Thepa rally from Thepa District, Songkhla Province, to Muang District. Thepa villagers would like to communicate and submit their letter to Gen. Prayut Chan-O-Cha, the head of NCPO, on 28 November 2017. However, on 27 November 2017, authorities dispersed the crowd and arrested 16 villagers who participated in this activity. One of them was a 16 year-old teenager after that there was a prosecution to another person, 17 people in total.