‘Sichon’ : Sedition charge for posting picture of King Rama 9th

Latest Update: 22/04/2020

Defendant

No information

Case Status

On trial in Court of First Instance

Case Started

2018

Complainant / Plaintiff

No information

Table of Content

'Sichon' is a pseudonym of the defendant. He was arrested on 26 September 2018 under an arrest warrant from Bangkok Military Court. He was charged for posting a picture of King Rama the 9th with his comment on his facebook. He was initially charged under lese majeste law and detained in prison. Later, the police did not prosecute him under this charge but leave only charges under Computer-related Crimes Act. The case then transferred to civilian court. The civilian prosecutor, however, prosecuted him by adding the Sedition charge under Section 116 of Criminal Code.

 

Defendant Background


Offense

Article 14 (3) Computer Related Crime Act, Article 14 (5) Computer Related Crime Act, Article 112 Criminal Code, Article 116 Criminal Code

Allegation


Circumstance of Arrest


Trial Observation

No information

Black Case

อ.3406/2561

Court

Criminal Court

Additional Info

No information

Reference

No information
26 September 2019
 
'Sichon' was arrested by the police of Technology Crime Suppression Division (TCSD) in Lat Phrao area. Then, he was taken to the Technology Crime Suppression Division Suppression at Chaeng Watthana Government Complex in order to prosecute him. During the investigation, “Sichon” was accused of violating Section 112 of Thai Criminal Code or lese majeste law as well as Computer Crime Act. “Sichon” was detained at Tun Song Hong Police Station for two days.
 
 
28 September 2018

The inquiry official of TCSD appealed to the Military Court to remand the defendant for 12 days during the investigation. The Bangkok Military Court thus accept its custody request. “Sichon”was sent to Bangkok Remand Prison.
 
 
14 November 2018

On the due date of the fourth remand, which was the last day that could detain the defendant pursuant to the law, the inquiry official forwarded the case file to the prosecutor with opinion that the defendant should not be prosecuted with Section 112. However, he was still charged the defendant with Computer Crime Act, which the judge advocate and the military court had no authority to conduct the trial. The judge advocate thus sent the case file back to the inquiry official. Then, the inquiry official sent the request to abandon the remand in the military court by submitting the case file and requesting remand at the Criminal Court, at Ratchadaphisek Road, instead.
 
 
The prosecutor of Office of the Attorney General did the case file on the same day. For the case file forwarded to the Criminal Court, the prosecutor charged the defendant with the same accusation in the first place and then charged with Section 116, the sedition charge, as well.
 
 
16 November 2018
 

The lawyer of “Sichon” submitted the bail request to the Criminal Court. The Criminal Court accepted the bail request and set the amount of bail which was 20,000 Bath. Also, the defendant must wear an electronic monitoring or EM.  
 

21 January 2019
 
On the day of giving testimony and evidence examination, “Sichon” went to the Court and denied all charges. The Criminal Court scheduled the witness hearing on the public prosecutor, on 8-9 October 2019, and the witness examination, on 10 October 2019.
 
 
8 October 2019
The witness hearing for the prosecutor

 
‘Sichon’ and his father including his lawyer and the prosecutor arrived at the courtroom No. 811 at the Criminal Court around 9.00 a.m. ‘Sichon’ sat with his father without talking to anyone, but he would look up and suddenly face down when somebody opened the door. As, today, the Court scheduled other defendants at the courtroom No. 811, many people thus waited in that room, so it was crowded. At around 9.40 a.m. the two judges approached to the bench. One of them asked a defendant that who else came to hear the verdict announcement, and then he asked them to go to another courtroom. After that, one of the judges standed up and walked to another courtroom whereas the other one proceeded on this trial.       
 
 
When that defendant went out, the judge called the prosecutor and the defendant to consult about their defense. The lawyer made the statement that the defendant admitted he really posted message. However, the defendant had mental illness. He posted message when he suffered from his mental illness.
 
 
The lawyer will defend that the message was not within the scope of Section 116 of Thai Criminal Code. The Court informed the lawyer that he wanted the lawyer to decide the way of defense clearly. If the lawyer will defend by giving the reason that the defendant had mental illness, it should lead in that way. However, the lawyer made statement that he will defend by giving both reasons that the defendant had mental illness and the message was not within the scope of offence. The discussion had taken around 15 minutes, and then the Court allowed the prosecutor to bring the first prosecution witness to give testimony without any clearance that the lawyer would lead the examination by pointing out only one issue that the Court recommend or not. 
 
 
At around 10 a.m. the Court asked ‘Sichon’ to stand up. ‘Sichon’ stood up slowly and will walk to the bench, but the Court stopped him and asked him to stay in his place. After that, the Court asked ‘Sichon’ how old he was. ‘Sichon’ answered slowly with quiet voice. Then, the Court asked father’s name and mother’s name. ‘Sichon’ could answer correctly. After that, the Court let him sit down and started to conduct the witness examination.    
 
 
The first prosecution witness was assistant professor Thawee Suraritgul of Sukhothai Thammathirat University, teaching Political Science. He gave testimony as a neutral witness.   
 

Thawee testified that he was 59 years old, and he graduated with Bachelor degree and Master degree in Political Science, from Chulalongkorn University. Also, he has worked as a professor of Sukhothai Thammathirat University for 32 years. Moreover, he used to serve as a Dean of the Faculty of Political Science in 2004. He used to be a member of National Legislative Assembly (NLA) in 2006. He used to serve as Vice-Rector in 2016.
 
 
Thawee testified that he was involved with this case because on 7 November 2018, the inquiry official brought document, which contained the message on Facebook, to show him at the university. The message was the same one posted on Facebook as public. On the day that the message was posted, Thawee testified that according to document, there were message and picture that were posted on 10 March 2016 at 9.34 a.m. It was the picture of King Rama IX. The Court said that the defendant admitted that he really posted it, so the prosecutor did not need to ask whether he posted it or not. This witness came here to give opinion, so the prosecutor should ask his opinion.
 
 
 
Thawee testified that apart from this picture, another picture was procession of vehicles posted on 25 March 2016. The Court said again that there were two pictures, so Thawee should testified in general. Thawee testified that the first post threatened or ‘offended’ the King which affected national security because the King was well-loved and revered by all Thai citizen, and no one could offend His majesty.  
 
 
Also, the second post offended the King as well. It was expression against the King which he had told his opinion with the inquiry official already.
 

Cross-examination
 

The lawyer informed the prosecutor to send document containing Thawee’s testimony. The prosecutor answered that she will not submit document during the direct examination because Thawee had already testified during the investigation process. Therefore, the prosecutor did not need to submit it.
 
 
The lawyer asked that regarding the problematic Facebook post, there was no opinion expression, clicking Like button, or sharing yes or no. Thawee admitted that there was no opinion expression, but whether it was shared, he did not know. Normally, Facebook users would post message by using real name and surname or not. Thawee said he did not know. The lawyer asked that the defendant used real name and surname as a Facebook account name yes or no. Assistant Professor Thawee said he did not know. The lawyer showed him document and asked that the account which was used to post message was named ‘Sichon’ or not. Assistant Professor said yes.    
 

The lawyer asked the defendant that when the police showed document, how he felt about it. Thawee said that after having seen, he felt negative and uncomfortable. The lawyer asked that there was a phenomenon that people raised up and violated laws or not. Thawee said that he was not sure because there were many events, so he had no idea whether it was relevant to the post of defendant. 
 
 
Re-direct examination
 
 
The prosecutor asked that how action of the defendant caused damage. Thawee answered that the royalists felt uncomfortable and worried because the monarchy was highly revered. The prosecutor asked that according to Thawee’s testimony, where he received information. Thawee answered that he testified based on his own feeling and the code of law.    
 
 
At 10.30 a.m. after the witness examination, the Court called the prosecutor and the lawyer to talk again which witness’s testimony they would accept. If they brought witnesses to investigate, the prosecutor would asked according to the testimony. However, the lawyer did not accept witness’s testimony because he would like to cross-examine during the direct examination. Therefore, the Court ordered to continue the trial. 
 
 
The second prosecution witness was ‘Aod’ defendant’s father. 
 
 
‘Aod’ testified that when this situation happened, ‘Sichon’ was 29 years old. ‘Sichon’ graduated from a vocational college, but he did not study further because he wanted to work. ‘Sichon’ applied for job and worked for two times. ‘Aod’ testified it was odd that his son just worked in a short time, so he asked Sichon’s supervisor at the second workplace. He found out that ‘Sichon’ had mental illness. He talked with other people unmannerly, and he liked to talk about religion unstoppably. After he quitted from the second workplace, ‘Sichon’ did not work and stayed at home. ‘Aod’ testified that for Sichon’s behavior, while staying home, he kept talking about religion unstoppably. ‘Sichon’ talked about how bad religion was, and he cannot argue with Sichon. Also, ‘Sichon’ always said that he was beyond the religion, and he was a buddhist saint. According to Aod’s opinion, he viewed that ‘Sichon’ had mental illness.      
 
 
‘Aod’ testified that in 2015, he took ‘Sichon’ to Deacha hospital. That hospital had no psychiatrist, but a doctor wrote a prescription and said that ‘Sichon’ was schizophrenic. When he stayed home, ‘Sichon’ had insomnia and was scared that somebody would attack him. One year later, he thought that he would take ‘Sichon’ to treat with a psychiatrist, but ‘Sichon’ ran away. He had no idea where ‘Sichon’ was. All this time, he and ‘Sichon’ will contact through mobile phone. 
 

‘Aod’ testified that personally, he did not use social media and never looked on Sichon’s Facebook account. ‘Aod’ testified that he installed 3BB internet for ‘Sichon’ because he wanted ‘Sichon’ to sell products on online. Later on, the police came to Sichon’s house, but he and ‘Sichon’ were not at home. Only his nephew waited at home.  ‘Aod’ testified that he thought ‘Sichon’ was not guilty. The prosecutor gave ‘Aod’ document as an evidence and asked how he felt.
 

‘Aod’ looked document and answered that he was shocked because in the past, he always told ‘Sichon’ that he must not involve with the monarchy because his surname and Sichon’s surname were given by His Majesty. Also, his family and he were loyal to the Royal institution always. Therefore, he believed that ‘Sichon’ posted message due to other reasons.
 

Cross-examination
 
 
The lawyer asked about the family. ‘Aod’ answered that ‘Sichon’ was  his son with his ex-wife. They divorced since ‘Sichon’ was young. ‘Sichon’ thus was under his care always. ‘Sichon’ had few friends and hardly contacted with anyone. He usually stayed alone and obsessed with the internet. The lawyer asked ‘Aod’ to tell about Sichon’s symptom. ‘Aod’ answered that ‘Sichon’ was scared of people and had insomnia, and sometime, he will walk around his house for one or two hours. When he told him to stop, he did not stop and said he cannot. He observed that whenever the weather changed, ‘Sichon’ would behave unusual, or sometimes, he will look normal.
 
 
The lawyer showed a book and asked that ‘Sichon’ wrote a book regarding the religion or not.  ‘Aod’ said yes. He explained that ‘Sichon’ was obsessed with religion and though that he was the Buddhist saint. Sometime, he thought that he was Buddha. The lawyer asked that on 5 April 2016, while searching in the house, did ‘sichon’ run away earlier or not. ‘Aod’ said yes. The lawyer asked that in the first place, did the investigator informed him what Section that ‘Sichon violated. ‘Aod’ answered that the investigator said that it was lese majeste charge or Section 112 of Criminal Code.  
 
 
The lawyer asked that while ‘Sichon’ was detained, did his symptoms appear or not. ‘Aod’ said yes and explained that ‘Sichon had suffered from mental illness, and he was admitted to hospital of the correctional institution. Later on, ‘Sichon was allowed to bail out. He took ‘Sichon’ to check at Vichaiyut Hospital. The doctor said that ‘Sichon’ had mental illness and should stay home, and he was sent to receive treatment at  Chaophraya Hospital. Nowadays, ‘Sichon’ still recieve treatment there.
 
 
Re-direct examination
 
 
The prosecutor asked that did medical document identify what kind of mental illness. ‘Aod’ answered that it was delusional disorder, but he did not ask further about its symptom. ‘Aod’ testified that during the first phase of treatment, a doctor had to tie up his hands and feet with bed. ‘Sichon’ was in the most severe condition that he has ever seen.       
 

At 11.00 a.m. the Court finished the witness examination. The Court called the prosecutor and the lawyer to talk further. The Court told the lawyer that to not prosecute by 112 Section did not mean that the defendant did not violate Section 112 of Criminal Code. However, there was a policy that there would no prosecution by using this Section. For this case, the lawyer should not defend by sitting on fences because the law and the policy was irrelevant. At that time, the prosecutor called ‘Aod’ and asked that did he have anything to tell. ‘Aod’ stood in front of the judge and said that he had talked with the lawyer previously. The judge asked that if so, he would deny all charge or not. The lawyer said yes.
 
 
The Court asked the prosecutor that the post was liked or shared or not. The prosecutor said no. The Court asked that in Sichon’s Facebook account had a lot of friends or not. the prosecutor answered that there were 1,107 friends. After that, the Court allowed the prosecutor to bring the next witness to testify.     
 
 

12 December 2019
Verdict announcement
 
 
At 9.00 a.m. ‘Sichon’ along with his father and the lawyer came to hear verdict announcement at the courtroom No. 811. Later on, at 9.45 a.m. the correctional officer came to the courtroom according to the court’s regulation that when it had verdict announcement, the correctional officer must be there, and the defendant must be handcuffed during verdict announcement. Not too long, the official in front of the bench contacted the security guard to come at the courtroom during verdict announcement.  
 

Later on, at 9.53 a.m. the judge approached to the bench. ‘Sichon’ stood up in order to hear verdict announcement. The judge told him to sit down and did not order to handcuff him as well. Also, he told the lawyer that the Court dismissed the offence according to Section 116, but offence according to the Computer Crime Act still left. The judge started to read verdict. It could be concluded that according to the prosecution according to Section 116 of Criminal Code and Section 14(3), (5) of Computer Crime Act, the defendant denied all charges. During witness examination, defendant’s father testified that the defendant had mental illness and was receiving treatment, but still was not getting better until now. For witness examination, the issue regarding defendant’s sickness that he posted during relapse was not attested.    
 

For other witness examinations, it was not clear that while committing offence or posting that message which was the cause of prosecution, the defendant had no consciousness, but from evidences and witnesses, it could be believed that he still had some consciousness when he posted the message. Therefore, the Court sentenced that he was guilty according to Section 14(3) and (5) Computer Crime Act and was sentenced to imprisonment for three years. However, the sentence was reduced from three years to two years because of Section 65 of Criminal Code.
 

After having read verdict announcement, the judge told the lawyer, 'Sichon' and his father that this is just only the verdict of the court of the fisrt instance. 'Sichon' can appeal to the higher court to examine this case again. He also told ‘Sichon’ many times that “It would be fine. It would be ok.” He said further that “the correctional officer here should look after him.” After that, when the defendant and other relevant people signed document, the correctional officer took ‘Sichon’ to the basement of the Court immediately. Meanwhile, the lawyer and Sichon’s father proceeded on the the request for temporary release by using old collateral from the court of the first instance.
 

Note* According to Section 65, whenever any person commits an offence at the time of not being able to appreciate the nature, or illegality of his act or not being able to control himself on account of defective mind, mental disease or mental infirmity, such person shall not be punished for such offence. But, if the offender is still partially able to appreciate the nature or illegality of his act, or is still partially able to control himself, such person shall be punished for such offence, but the Court may inflict less punishment to any extent than that provided by the law for such offence.

 

Verdict

No information

Other Cases

Teepakorn: Sharing YouTube video and criticizing the monarchy on Facebook

Nut: Wore crop top at Siam Paragon

Tepha: Defying public assembly act(2nd case)