Chiang Rai Red-shirt gathering under Emergency Decree
Latest Update: 02/12/2016
Defendant
No information
Case Status
Judgment / End of trial
Case Started
2010
Complainant / Plaintiff
Chiang Rai Public Prosecutor
Table of Content
Chiang Rai Public prosecotor prosecuted 5 local radio presenters for defying the Emergency Decree order after they assembled asking the government not to use violence against red-shirts protestors.
Defendant Background
The accused comprise Attakorn Kantachai, Thanit Boonyanasinikasem, Wittaya Thantiphuwanat, Pimnara Nonghanpitak, and Songtham Kid-an who were the leaders of Chiang Rai’s Red-shirt Group and the radio presenters for a local Red-shirt community radio station in Chiang Rai.
Offense
Emergency Decree
Allegation
The charges in the conplaint that the prosecuter submitted to the court were separated into two parts as follows:
Part I: In the case of Thanit, Wittaya, and Pimnara, the three were charged with violating Section 9 of the Emergency Decree and Section 215 of the Criminal Code due to the assembly of more than ten people, and instigating unrest by persuading people to join the anti-government protests, causing a breach of public order in Chiang Rai province where the state of emergency was imposed. Besides, they were charged with an unlawful act of obstructing highway which might cause certain kinds of danger, injury and damages to individuals and vehicles according to the Highway Act 1992.
Part II: In the case of Songtham Kid-an and Attakorn Kantachai, although they did not participate in the protest, they reportedly broadcasted some content deemed defame the government and Thai military on 107.5 MHz, Red-shirts community radio station in Chiang Rai. Their accusation claimed that both authorities: the government and the military, are responsible for massacring anti-government protesters and failing to bring about an ligitimate administration. They were also charged of violating Section 9 of Emergency Decree as they provoked the radio audience to join the anti-government assembly and disseminated false information, which caused fear and misunderstanding regarding the state of emergency, and undermined the State security, public order and good morals.
Circumstance of Arrest
No information
Trial Observation
No information
Black Case
อ.513/2555
Court
No information
Additional Info
No information
Reference
No information
17 May 2010
Under the government led by Abhisit Vejjajivathe, the Emergency Decree 2005 was declared to control the red-shirts demonstration in the center of Bangkok. A group of frustrating red-shirts in Chiang Rai assembled in front of local police headquarter before heading to Chiang Rai City Hall to submit a petition asking the government not to use force against their fellow demonstrators at Ratchaprasong intersection.
14 June 2010
After the demonstration in Bangkok was dispersed, Chiang Rai police informed the charge of violating the Emergency Decree against the five Red-shirt leaders. All turned themselves into the police but denied all charges.
26 July 2011
Office of Chiang Rai Provincial Public Prosecutor issued an order to the superintendent of Chiang Rai police station to terminate the case.
6 February 2012
Chiang Rai Public Prosecutor filed the case to Chiang Rai Provincial Court. The charges were separated into two parts as follows:
Part I: In the case of Thanit, Wittaya, and Pimnara, the three were charged with violating Section 9 of the Emergency Decree and Section 215 of the Criminal Code due to the assembly of more than ten people, and instigating unrest by persuading people to join the anti-government protests, causing a breach of public order in Chiang Rai province where the state of emergency was imposed. Besides, they were charged with an unlawful act of obstructing highway which might cause certain kinds of danger, injury and damages to individuals and vehicles according to the Highway Act 1992.
Part II: In the case of Songtham Kid-an and Attakorn Kantachai, although they did not participate in the protest, they reportedly broadcasted some content deemed defame the government and Thai military on 107.5 MHz, Red-shirts community radio station in Chiang Rai. Their accusation claimed that both authorities: the government and the military, are responsible for massacring anti-government protesters and failing to bring about an ligitimate administration. They were also charged of violating Section 9 of Emergency Decree as they provoked the radio audience to join the anti-government assembly and disseminated false information, which caused fear and misunderstanding regarding the state of emergency, and undermined the State security, public order and good morals.
11 December 2013
Chiang Rai Court scheduled verdict hearings for the case.
The Court informed the defendants that before rendering and announcing the verdict, it must be first reviewed by Office of the Chief Justice, Region V. Thus, both the Court and the defendant agreed to postpone the verdict hearing to 11 February 2014 at 9.00 am.
11 February 2014
The verdict hearing was held at Chiang Rai Provincial Court, in Courtroom No. 13. On that day came the five defendants with their lawyers. There were around 10 attendees while the plaintiff didn't show up.
At 9.47 am when Judge Surasit Ingsathittanawat together with Deputy Judge of Chiang Rai Provincial Court entered the bench. The Judges stated that due to the importance of this case, the draft verdict has been sent to be examined thoroughly by Office of the Chief Justice, Region V. After the revision, the Court received an order to amend the form of the draft again.
Just receiving the order on previous Friday to rearrange the verdict which the operation took at least fifteen days made the Court unable to read the verdict in a timely manner. Moreover, the draft verdict re-submission to Office of Chief Justice Region V for new revision would take almost another 30-day period. The Court reasoned that this was its first time facing certain kind of case. It therefore apologised to the defendants for the time-consuming process.
The defendant party tried to ask the Court if the verdict content would also be changed. The Court clarified that the Region V court just ordered to amend the form of writing but nothing to do with the original verdict. The case was under responsibility of the Court; the reviewer shall not interfered.
Alongside its clarification, the Judge handed the letter from Office of Chief Justice Region V to the defendants. It said the Judge responsible for the case shall adjust the draft verdict and re-submit it to the office. (The Court however did not reveal in detail on how the Chief Judge Office required the case to be amended)
The Court and the defendants again resettled the verdict hearing. The Judge overseeing the case asked if the date could be fixed in March as he would be soon transferred to another province.
The defendants therefore consented to postpone the hearing to 25 March 2014 at 9.00 am.
25 March 2014
At 9.00, at Chiang Rai Provincial Court, the hearing was scheduled for Attakorn and the others with the accusation of violating Emergency Decree 2005 during the military crackdown against the Red-shirts massive demonstration in 2010. The Court rendered it decision to dismiss the cases
According to Prachathai’s report, during the verdict reading, the Court just informed the case dismissal without reading in detail as the verdict was presumably long and in handwritten form. The Court however handed the handwritten verdict form to both the defendants and media for observation.
Some parts of the verdict content indicated that there was no clear evidence proving that the defendant no.1 and 2 have distorted facts and information. Although, at the controversial gatherings in Bangkok there were use of weapons and a number of deaths, their speeches contained no messages that led to the public’s misunderstanding about the state of emergency or the State security.
For the defendants no.3, 4 and 5, it’s said that they conducted a peaceful and unarmed assembly under principles of democracy. With good intention not to have any more injured, their speech was made to persuade the demonstrators to gather and submit a petition to the government to stop using forces on the protesters in Bangkok. Meanwhile, the witness hearing of the plaintiff was not able to clarify that the defendants truly held a gathering of more than 10 people, and there was no solid proof that the rally to submit the petition has caused unrest to the public. Thus, this was lawfully considered as an exercise of the right according to Section 36 (A person shall enjoy the liberty of communication by lawful means) and Section 63 (A person shall enjoy the liberty to assemble peacefully and without arms) of the 2007 Constitution of Thailand.
After the hearing, Attakorn said that he felt delighted that he and his companions were found not guilty on all charges. He said that the acts were done accordingly with the rights under the Constitution. As on 17 May 2010 the situation was getting intense, there was ‘area tightening’ while many civilians were killed. Therefore he and his peers decided to call on the government not to use violence against the demonstrators; however, there still was a large number of deaths and injures on the following 19 May 2010. He said he at least tried his best to prevent this tragedy to happen. He also stated that the expense spent on this case was so high and it also has an effect on his wife as she could not bear coworker pressure and criticisms and consequently have to early resign from the Civil Service.
Furthermore, the evidence produced by the plaintiff was deemed insufficient to prove the defendant guilty. The Court then made a decision to dismiss the case.
Verdict
No information