- iLaw Website
- Documentation Center
Lèse-majesté
Case name"Tanet": Sending an email with mental disorder
Case #614
Name of persons / Name of Media
Tanet
Case status
Judgment / End of trial
Status of Accused
Sentenced to prison
Offense / order
Article 14 (3) Computer Related Crime Act, Article 112 Criminal Code
Summary
'Tanet' was accused that he send an email to an English man with a link to some content that seem to be a defamation to the King and the Heir. After being arrested, he was sent to have a metal examination and the doctor agreed that he has mental illness as paranoin schizophrenia.
'Tanet' argued the case that he sent an email under a mental illness. The court sentenced him to 5 years imprisonment and reduced to 3 years and 4 months.
Basic information
Background of accused
'Tanet' is from Petchabun Province. He has his own online agricultural shop through the website http://www.misterotwo.com/. He has never been attending any political rallies or activities.
Learn mrore about 'Tanet', read Tanet: Whispers in My Ears [112 The Series]
Department of Special Investigation Officer (DSI) was an acussor of this case
Legal Claims
Lèse-majesté
-
Form of restriction on freedom
Charge filed
-
Type of media
E-mail
-
Province
Bangkok
-
Court
Criminal Court
-
Black case
อ.3190/2557 Date: 2014-09-30 -
Red case
อ.2069/2558 Date: 2015-06-25
Details of offence according to charge
His action was found since June 2010, DSI officer requested the court authority to access the information in that e-mail.
'Tanet' was alleged that he sent an e-mail with a url link to a content that could be comsidered as violation of lese majeste law to e-mail address [email protected] of an English man named Elimio Esteban. The link was connected to sanamluang.blogspot which hosted the content relating to lese majeste. The url link was blocked after that.
His action was found since June 2010, DSI officer requested the court authority to access the information in that e-mail.
Circumstance of arrest
2 June 2014 around 6 AM, at his sister’s house in Petchabun, 3 soldiers in uniform and 7 plainclothesmen called 'Tanet' and get into the house to arrest him.
The officers seized the CDs, flashdrive and asked for the password of the facebook named “misterotwo” and the e-mail.
After that, 'Tanet' was taken to the 11th Military Circle, and was detained there for 7 days. He was released on 8 July 2014. After that, the officers from the Technology Crime Suppression Division (TCSD) declared the warrant of arrest and sent him to Bueng Sam Phan Provincial Police Station, Petchabun Province for an investigation. 'Tanet' confessed for sending the e-mail during investigation process.
Progress of case
8 July 2014, 'Tanet' was arrested at his sister’s house in Petchabun.
9 July 2014, 'Tanet' was taken to the Criminal Court Ratchada in order to request for a temporary detention. The court approved the temporary detention so he was detained at the Bangkok Remand Prison. His family did not have enough money to submit the request for bail.
22 and 24 September 2014,
After Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) submitted a letter to the Department of Corrections to diagnose 'Tanet''s mental problem. 'Tanet' was taken to Galya Rajanagarindra Institute. However, the psychiatrist has not yet declared the results of the diagnosis.
30 September 2014,
The public prosecutor submitted the complaint to the Criminal Court.
1 October 2014,
Mr. 'Tanet' was brought to the Criminal Court to be informed the criminal charge. The lawyer filed a petition to postpone the schedule of preliminary hearing while waiting for the result from Galya Rajanagarindra Institute. The Court made an appointment, so that the defendant would be back on 1 December 2014, at 13.30 hrs.
13 October 2014,
At about 15.00 hrs., the Criminal Court, Ratchada, Mr. 'Tanet'’s lawyer filed a petition for a temporary release to the court. The bail was secured in cash for 200,000 Baht.
In the request, the defendant reasoned the Court that he was ill, and needed continuous treatment. The defendant’s condition was severe, and could have been fatal, if not being continuously treated. The defendant was diagnosed with mental disorders, which the examining doctor confirmed that the defendant was truly suffered from mental disorders.
The defendant has already provided a complete testimony, and all evidences was with the inquiry officers. The defendant was just a person, who could not interfere the evidences. It was unlikely that the defendant would be flee. Even the defendant was accused under a charge with severe penalty, but since the Court hasn’t ruled, so that they couldn’t assume that the defendant would flee. To imprison the defendant was as same as the defendant was criminally convicted prior the Court’s final judgment which was contradict to international human rights principles. The defendant wasn’t a group leader, neither, participated political rallies.
Later on at about 17.30 hrs., the Court ruled that the alleged offence was a publication of false statement, which affected the people’s feelings and intended to defame the people’s highly-respected Institute. And it was a criminal act that concerned the Kingdom’s security.
The case’s circumstance was severe. It was convinced that if the temporary release was permitted, the defendant could flee. Even though the defendant argued the physical and mental sicknesses, and the need of medical treatment, the evidence of such argument was not sufficient that the Court could have ruled differently, so that the Court dismissed the request.
1 December 2014
The court set a schedule for deposition examination. Before the trial start, the court declared that this case will be try in camera.
The defendant's lawyer dubmitted a testimony in document state that the defendant admit that he was an owner of the email and had sent an email according to the accusation. But he sent such email at the time of not being able to appreciate the nature, or illegality of his act or not being able to control himself due to his mental infirmity as specified in the result from Galya Rajanagarindra Institute, the defendant has got a Paranoid Schizsophrenia. The defendant now acknowledges that sending such email is inappropiate. If the defendant was in full concious and being able to control himself at that time, he would not do such thing. Moreover, the defendant only sent the URL, he did not involve in the defamtion content directly. The court should dismiss the case.
8 December 2014,
The defendant submitted a request for bail with 200,000 baht cash and a medical certification from Kallaya Tatchanakarin Institute specified that the defendant gas got Paranoid Schizophrenia and also shows sign of depression. At the present he was able to plea.
The court see that Bangkok Remand Prison which is a detention place, once, sent the defendant to be treated at Kallaya Tatchanakarin Institute and the institue had already submitted the report to the court so there is no need to inquire the doctor anymore. And the court also see that if the defendants illness reach a severe level where the prison cannot achieve the safety of the defendant’s life, he shall be sent to the doctor to cure him. There is no reason to changer the prior order.
22 December 2014,
The defendant submitted an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the Criminal Court that did not allow hm on bail. The appeal stated reasons that as follow: Bangkok Remand Prison had too many detainees and was not able to take good care of their health. The prison sent the defendant to examine his symtomp because Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) filed a direct request not because the prison officers can notice the illness by themselves. The current situation of the prison was congested and not proper for defendants treatment. The Court should inquire the doctor before making any decision.
Furthurmore, the defendant had permanent residence, he could not flee or interfere any evidences. If the court need to assign any condition of release, the defendant was willing to follow.
Later, the Court of Appeal insisted the order of the Criminal Court not allowing the defendant on bail.
17 February 2015
Mediation hearing
The public prosecutor, defendant, defense lawyer, and defendant’s relatives came to the Court while the judge was taken by surprise by the fact that the case had been referred to the mediation room. The judge in the mediation room said he had no power to determine the penalty of the defendant since he needs to get advice from his superior before making any decision on this kind of case.
The lawyer pleaded to the Court that in this case, the defendant had suffered mental illness per the letter from the doctor attached in the file. Therefore, the defendant is brought here to plead guilty and the Court is then asked to suspend his punishment or to instead order him to undergo the treatment.
The Court explained that he had no power to make any decision on the case and it is improper for the lawyer to force the defendant to plead guilty. The Court asked the defendant if he did send the email as alleged, he admitted to doing it. The Court asked further if he was aware of the content of the email, he said he was not since when he was sending the email, he heard some whispering voice in his ears, and prompted by that, he sent it without bothering to read the detail.
The Court informed the defense lawyer that since the defendant was not aware of the content of the email, it meant he pleaded not guilty. In such case, the lawyer could not force the defendant to plead guilty. The Court adjourned the hearing and noted in the docket that the Department of Corrections shall be informed by letter to take the defendant to receive treatment at the hospital.
The lawyer further asked the Court about the application for temporary release, though the Court said since he conducted a mediation hearing, he had not power to grant the bail. The bail request should be made through a normal procedure and it is subject to the discretion of the Court to allow it or not.
On the same day, the defendant’s older sister applied for bail placing cash for the amount of 300,440,73 baht citing the reason that the defendant was suffering from paranoid. That the doctor opined that he could stand for a trial was a different issue from the fact that he needed to receive the treatment urgently. Given the crowded environment in the prison, it is unlikely that the custodian officers would be able to provide sufficient treatment and care and it is not suitable place for the treatment of mental condition.
On the same day, the Court dismissed the bail request.
8 May 2015
Witness examination
At the Criminal Court, room no. 713, the Court conducted the witness examination and the defendant was brought there. The judge ascended to the bench at around 9.35, and he asked again how the defendant would like to plead. The defense lawyer declared that the defendant wanted to plead not guilty. Though the defendant admitted to sending the email as alleged, but he wanted to argue that it was sent while he was having some mental condition. The Court told the lawyer that if the defendant had really done it, it would be better that he pleaded guilty since it would help to reduce the punishment. By fighting the charge, the punishment would be different, since the defendant did not appear completely insane.
“Tanet” rose up to plead to the Court that he had been admitting to sending the email, but he had suffered from whispering voice in his ears and he had been tricked in over the past 20 years. He was not aware of the culpability of the content of the email since if something was culpable, google should have warned the sender. But on that day, he did not receive any warning from google. Even now, he had no idea how his act could be found culpable. The Court said that how could he not know of the content, the sending of an email was not that simple. As to if anything was culpable or not, it was subject to the discretion of the Court. By pleading guilty unconditionally this way would benefit the defendant in anyway.
The defense lawyer stated to the Court later that he wanted to fight on the issues of mental illness. Whether the mental condition was real or not was beyond the knowledge of the prosecutor, the lawyer and even the Court. May it please the Court to allow a medical doctor to give evidence on this issue. If so, he would not argue against other issues surrounding the case. The Court agreed and commenced the witness examination.
The first prosecution witness, Mr. Kerkchai Srisookcharoen, officer from the Department of Special Investigation (DSI), gave evidence on the investigation procedure. It began with the defendant being arrested by the military for inquiry invoking Martial Law. During the investigation, “Tanet” made the confession to him. “Tanet” appeared normal and was able to respond to all questions. He did not say that he was suffering from mental illness. His subordinate officer who had gone to acquire more information also found “Tanet” was able to carry out his business. During the interrogation on the second and third days, a rapport was made to prevent “Tanet” from being too stressed. He recalled the whispering voice in his ears and the feeling that someone was trying to harm him. The witness could not understand what he said.
The second prosecution witness was 2LT Wiphon Chailat, inquiry officer, who gave evidence that after pressing charges against the defendant, he admitted to being the sender of the email. But the electronics devices confiscated from the residence of the defendant were examined and found not related to the case. While interrogating him, the inquiry officer said he could not tell if “Tanet” was suffering from mental illness since he was able to speak meaningfully.
The first defense witness was Dr. Duangta Kraipaspong, the doctor who gave treatment to the defendant. She said that the defendant told her that someone was coming after him and he suffered from the whispering voice in his ears. It was so unbearable that he was pondering taking his own life. The defendant was able to respond to questions concerning the case. He had undergone a mental test to assess if he was really suffering from a mental illness. After the test, it was found the defendant did not pretend to be ill. From the data received, she said he was suffering from paranoid.
Paranoid is a mental disease. It stems from the malfunction of the brain and could be attributed to many causes. From examining his background, it was found that his older brother was suffering from the same mental condition. It could also be a genetic disorder. Another reason could be that the defendant used to use addictive drug for five or six years, and it could have stimulated his paranoid disorder. Persons who suffer from this condition often start to show the symptom in their teen. The treatment has to be given life-long. The condition could be relieved, but not cured. The defendant had not received the treatment before. Had he received it, it could have been better than this.
The defendant’s condition did not reach the level of schizophrenia since he was still aware of what charges were pressed against him. He was able to respond to questions and was aware of his right to lawyer. The defendant also recalled to her that because he looked like the Crown Prince, it was the reason he had been subject to abuse.
The second defense witness was “Tanet”, the defendant himself. He pleaded that he was the person who sent the email as alleged, though he had not made up the content retrieved from the website sanamluang2008. Prior to sending the email, he got to read the content of the web page referred to by the link, but not all of it.
The reason he had sent the email as alleged was he heard some voice asking for help and he heard the voice 24 hours. Even sustaining the condition, he dared not go to see the doctor fearing he would be blamed for an insane person.
The third defense witness was Ms. Netnapa Hanrak, defendant's older sister. She testified that the defendant had been living with her for about four or five years. The defendant kept fearing of being harmed by someone believing that he had been drugged and been a target of attack. He felt he had been stalked wherever he had gone to. The defendant had suffered from the condition since 2009. She used to persuade him to go see doctor, but he failed to heed to her advice. As far as she could ascertain, all the things he was talking about was unfounded.
After the witnesses examination finished, the court schedule to read its verdict on 25 June 2015, 9am.
25 June 2015,
Verdict annoucement
The Criminal Court scheduled for a verdict annoucement at room no.713. The trial start around 9.15. In the court room, besides the defendant and his relatives, reporters from AFP and Prachatai and representatives from UN OHCHR also attend to observe the verdict while a representatives from Danish embassy arrived late becase an officers informed the wrong court room.
The court sentenced 'Tanet' to 5 years in prison and reduced to 3 years and 4 months.
The Verdict
The verdict from the Criminal Court
The content to which the link in the email sent by the defendant referred featured both various texts and images including the pictures of His Majesty the King and the Crown Prince. Even though the defendant had only sent the URL but he was supposed to have probed the content of the website which was deemed offensive to the King and the Crown Prince. The act of the defendant was committed with intent to spread the content of the website to the email recipient. And the defendant must have known full well that the Thai Monarch is highly revered and inviolable. Still, he intended to point to the source of information and to expose the public to such articles. The act of the defendant therefore indicated his intent to defame, insult, or threaten the King and the Heir-apparent and was not found constitutional. It aimed to incite unrest and disaffection amongst the people in a manner likely to cause disturbance in the country.
The Court is obliged to review if it is true or not the argument put forth by the defendant that he had committed the act out of his mental condition which made it impossible for him to control his mind. The Court views that according to the evidence given by the doctor who has given treatment to the defendant, he seemed to demonstrate a normal level of intellectual capacity. Though his mind might wander off the reality sometime, but it is not that severe. The wandering of his mind might stem from the high stress environment during the test. When a person is subject to a new situation, it could make him find it difficult to get adjusted for a while and might rely on his mental capacity to evade the predicament. But in a normal situation, the person should be able to get adjusted fine. He may have a problem creating relationship with other people, and also showed abnormal emotion coupled with depression, but he is able to plead.
The Court also received testimony from the inquiry officer and DSI officer who had talked with the defendant that he was able to testify normally and appeared to be just like a normal person. Both witnesses are government officials performing their duties and there is no reason they would have intentionally implicate the defendant. Also, in the testimony given by the defendant, it appeared he had described in detail as to the commission of the offence, step by step. Even though the defendant only completed the third grade, but he was able to read and write in English from his self-study. He used to go abroad and was able to trade his online business.
Even though according to the examination report of the doctor, he appeared to show some abnormal symptom. But in view of his daily life, the Court is not convinced that while committing the offence, the defendant was oblivion to morality or was unable to control himself due to his mental disorder. Thus, the defendant cannot cite it as a reason to exonerate himself.
The Court found the defendant guilty for defaming and insulting the King, inciting unrest and disaffection amongst the people in a manner likely to cause disturbance in the country, inputting into computer system the information which could affect national security per the Penal Code’s Section 112 and 116 and the Computer Crime Act’s Section 14(3), (5).
Since the act of the defendant is a one and the same act violating several provisions of the law, the most severe punishment shall be applied including Section 112. He is sentenced to 5 years in jail. Given that during the trial, the defendant has given useful evidence, it shall be reduced by one third to three 3 and 4 months.
