- Important case
Pruetnarin: 112 case from facebook posts
Defendant
Case Status
Case Started
Complainant / Plaintiff
Table of Content
Pruetnarin was arrested at his resident. He was accused for posting 9 messages via 3 facebook accounts that were likely to violated Article 112 of the Criminal Code.
Ubon Ratchathani Court sentenced him under Article 112 for 3 years each count and under Computer Crime Act for 4 months each counts. In total he had been sentenced for 27 years and 36 months. His sentence was later mitigated to 13 years and 24 months due to his guilty plea.
Pruetnarin was released on 1 September 2017 after he was serving prison sentence for 1266 days since he was remanded under the court custody on 16 June 2014.
Normally, in other cases, the court considered Article 112 and Computer Crime Act as one act that violate several laws so the court will punish the defendant only under Article 112 which is the severest penalty. This is the only case that the court sentenced Article 112 seperate from Computer Crime Act which causes the defendant more severe penalty.
Defendant Background
Pruetnarin was a musician in Ubon Ratchathani. He was 27 when he was arrested.
Offense
Allegation
Pruetnarin was accused for posting messages via 3 facebook accounts deemed to be offense against Article 112 of the Criminal Code. He was charged for 9 counts.
Circumstance of Arrest
16 March 2012
Over 10 officers from the Technology Crime Supression Division and the local police in Ubon Ratchathani arrested Pruetnarin at his house and confiscated his computer.
Praved Praphanukul, Pruetnarin's lawyer said that the accused claimed that authorities used an intelligence to follow his movement. The intelligence used facebook account "Tangmo Momay" to try to be friend with him and incited him to post Lèse-majesté messages. The accused also claimed that the conversation on telephone between he and the intelligence was recorded and was used as an evidence against him.
Trial Observation
Black Case
Court
Additional Info
Reference
16 March 2012
Pruetnarin was arrested at his house.
17 March 2012
The police brought Pruetnarin to the Ubon Ratchathani Provincial Court to request for a pretrial detention order where the court authorized.Pruetnarin requested the court to release him temporality. He filed a request with a deposit in cash in the sum of 100,000 Baht as well as the civil servant position of his father. The court later granted his request.
8 June 2012
Today marked the 84th date of pre-trial detention. However, the police cannot conclude the investigation, Pruetnarin wasn't brought before the court for a prosecution.
The court then order to set Pruetnarin free until the charge is filed.
It is also needed to note that Pruetnarin released temporalily throughout the pretrial period.
According to the Pruetnarin's mother, while the he was released temporarily, the police summoned him by letter and by phone call to report and transfered him to the doctor for mental check up.
1 June 2014
After the coup on 22 May 2014, National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) summoned persons to report. Pruetnarin's name also appeared on the summon, he went to report on 13 June 2014
13 June 2014
After reported before the NCPO, Pruetnarin was detain under the Martial Law for 3 nights.
16 June 2014
The public prosecutor filed the charge before the Ubon Ratchathani Provincial Court.
An accusation in the complaint stated that from July 2011 to March 2012, the defendant used 3 different Facebook accounts posted 9 messages that can considered as an offense against Article 112 of the Criminal Code. The charge also mentioned that the offense were committed in the different times.
After the case was brought to the court, Pruetnarin was detained in Ubon Ratchathani Central Prison during the trial process.
17 June 2014
Pruetnarin's mother submitted a request for temporary release but the request was rejected by the court.
30 June 2014
Preliminary hearing
Pruetnarin pleaded guilty, the court then do not need to conduct a witnesses hearing. The defendant's lawyer requested the court to postpone a reading of a verdict to submit a supplementary statement.
Pruetnarin's lawyer also submitted a doctor's certificate before the court. However, the court found that the fact concerning the Pruetnarin's mental condition stated in the certificate was not efficient.
The court then summoned the doctor to testify on 16 July 2014 about the Pruetnarin's mental condition before the verdict will be read.
16 July 2014
Testimony of Dr. Jedsada Tongthao, a psychiatrist in charge of the accused
The defence lawyer arrived at the court around 9.00 am. Pruetnarin's mother also came to observe the trial in the court room while his father sat outside the court room.
When the public prosecutor arrived, Pruetnarin's mother and the defence lawyer discussed with him concerning the possible direction of the trial. The prosecutor asked for a confirmation whether Pruetnarin who had mental problem is able to stand the trial or not . The defence lawyer confirmed that Pruetnarin is able to stand the trial.
The judges arrived in the court room at 9.30 am. but the proceeding of this case was not began because the court proceeded with other cases
Before the formal proceeding began, the court discussed with the doctor informally regarding Pruetnarin's mental condition as well as the doctor's contact so the court could contact the doctor later for further information.
During the discussion, the court asked whether the doctor has ever testified before the court or not? The doctor replied that this is his first time.
Shortly before the proceeding of this case was commenced, Pruetnarin's father who sat outside the court room entered the court room with a baby in his hand. However, the baby cried out loud the Pruetnarin's mother then need to brought the baby out before came back to the court room later.
Around 11.30 am the proceeding of this case began, the court asked the doctor whether Pruetnarin able to stand the trial or not? The doctor told the court that the defendant is able to stand the trial.
The court asked whether the doctor can confirm if Pruetnarin committed offenses while he had a mental problem or not? The doctor stated that he can not confirm. The court then allow the public prosecutor and the defence lawyer to ask the question.
Answer to the public prosecutor
The public prosecutor asked the doctor regarding the continuity of the Pruetnarin's mental problem whether the condition of the Pruetnarin in 2014 similar like the condition checked in 2012 or not. The prosecutor also asked about the change of the severity of the symptom.
The doctor replied that the Pruetnarin's mental condition checked in 2014 was similar with the condition checked in 2012. As for the development of the symptom, the doctor said that it is not severe but it could be worse if the patient did not recieved a treatment continuosly.
Answer the defence lawyer
The defence lawyer asked the doctor if he can confirm whether the Pruetnarin had mental problem before the mental check up in 2012 or not? The doctor replied that he can't confirm.
After the proceeding, the court announced that the verdict will be read on 31 July 2014.
Verdict rendering
Pravet Praphanukul, defense lawyer informed that the Ubon Ratchathani Provincial Court today sentenced Pruetnarin to 15 years in Prison.
Initialy, he will be sentence under Article 112 of the Criminal Code for 27 years (3 years for each count, together 9 counts) and under Computer-related Crime Act of 2550 BE (2007 CE) for 36 months (4 months for each count together 9 counts). In total 27 years and and 36 months.
The court later mitigated his penalties by half on the ground that Pruetnarin plead guilty, he will be sentence to 13 years and 24 months.
The lawyer also stated that he will discuss with Pruetnarin's relatives concerning the direction of the case in the future, whether to appeal or to apply for Royal Pardon.
Prior to the rendering of a verdict, the court summoned the doctor to testify regarding Pruetnarin's mental condition.
If Pruetnarin had mental problem and should an immediete treatment is require, the court may consider to suspend his sentence for the sake of his medication even his sentence was over 2 years. However, his sentence was not suspend.
Verdict
Initialy, he will be sentence under Article 112 of the Criminal Code for 27 years (3 years for each count, together 9 counts) and under Computer-related Crime Act of 2550 BE (2007 CE) for 36 months (4 months for each count together 9 counts). In total 27 years and and 36 months.
The court later mitigated his penalties by half on the ground that the defendant plead guilty, The defendant will be sentenced to 13 years and 24 months.