- Important case
Jittra : Defying NCPO order
Latest Update: 20/08/2019
Defendant
Jittra Cotchadet
Case Status
Judgment / End of trial
Case Started
2014
Complainant / Plaintiff
Lt. Col. Burin Thongprapai, a staff of judge advocate was authorized by NCPO to report the case to inquiry officer.
Table of Content
Jittra the, a former president of Triumph Workers Union was summoned by NCPO Order no. 44. Jittra could not report with the NCPO on time as she was aborad and could not return to report herself in with the NCPO on time.
The police later requested the Bangkok Military Court to issued warrant against her. Jittra was arrested at the airport on 13 June 2014 when she returned to Thailand.
Jittra denied all charge and insisted that she had no intention to defy the order.
She claimed that when the order was issued she was abroad and could not return to report herself in on time. Jittra however tried her best to get in touch with the NCPO including asked her friend to hand a letter to head of NCPO on her behalf as well as report her self in at the Thai Embassy in Sweden.
On 6 July 2017, the Bangkok Military Court charge against Jittra on the ground that she had no intention to defy the order and she had take all necessary measures to comply with the order.
Defendant Background
Jittra is a former president of the Triumph Labour Union, and a reader to called for justice of a group of lay off workers. Currently, she is an advisor of the Triumph Labour Union. In 2011, Jittra Showed a paper with "only good with talking" up while Abhisit Vejjajiva was speaking on the stage at the International Women's Day. Jittra was candidated as a member of Democratic Force Party on 2 February 2014.
Offense
Defying NCPO order 41/2014
Allegation
On 1 June 2014, the NCPO issued order no. 44/2014 summoned individuals including Jittra to report themselves in on 3 June 2014. At that time Jittra was not in Thailand and could not come to report herself in on time. She was later prosecuted in the Military Court.
Circumstance of Arrest
1 June 2014
The NCPO issued an order no.44/2014, summoned Jittra to report within 3 June 2014 but she can't complied with the order as she was aboard. On 8 June 2014, the Military Court issued an arest warrant against her. Jittra was arrested by the Immigration Police after arrived at Suvarnabhumi airport in the morning of 13 June 2014.
Trial Observation
No information
Black Case
28 ก./2557
Court
Bangkok Military Court
Additional Info
No information
Reference
No information
1 June 2014
The NCPO issued the order No. 41/2014 summon Jittra to report.
3 June 2014
Jittra went to reported at The Royal Thai Embassy in Sweden but the embassy denied because the embassy doesn’t know what to do.
9 June 2014
The Military Court authorizedthe the arrest warrant.
10 June 2014
At Royal Thai Army Hall, Jittra’s representative went to report to Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha to inform that Jittra doesn't want to avoid the order but she was doing her work in Sweden, she will come back to Thailand on 13 June 2014 to report, immediately.
13 June 2014
Prachatai reported that Jittra arrived at Suvarnabhumi Airport and was arrested there, after that she was taken to the Crime Suppression Division and was arrested there.
14 June 2014
Jittra was taken to the Military Court to request for further detention. The proceeding started around 11.00 AM. After the request was approved, Jittra was taken to The Central Women Correctional Institution for detention.
Around 4.20 PM by the help from Thai Lawyers for Human Rights Center, Jittra got a temporary release with 20,000 Bath for bailment.
The limitation for the temporary release’s accused:
1. Do not join in any political gathering and do not express any opinion through speech or the others way or public any press to make seditious among the poeple.
2. The accused has to report to the Military Court on 19 June 2014 at 9.30 AM, and on 25 June 2014 to hear a decision of a further detention's request. Jittra was released at the Central Women Correctional Institution.
25 June 2014
Due the time of a warrant of a first further detention and a second further detention between 26 Jun – 7 July. However, the court approved a temporary release with 20,000 Bath for bailment.
8 September 2014
Deposition examination
The prosecutor’s complaint dexcribed that Jittra is guilty of defying the additional summons order No.44/2557 which contained the defendant’s name. However, the defendant did not report to the NCPO at the prescribed date and time. Therefore, the defendant is guilty of defying the NCPO order No. 41/2557
The defendant denied the charge and wanted to defend the case. The defendant accepted the fact that she was detained during 13 June – 14 June 2014. Then, the prosecutor asked for witness examination
The defense attorney asked the court for the permission to examine the evidence because he was afraid that the evidence submitted was more than stated in the evidence list. The plaintiff stated that the defense attorney can copy the evidence list from the court at a later time.
The court scheduled the plaintiff’s witness examination on 9 December 2014
9 December 2014
Ms. Jittra arrived at the Bangkok Military court and file a request demanding the constitutional court to determine if the content of the law applicable to her case are contradict to the content of Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (Interim) 2014 or not. She was also requested the military court to forward her request to the constitutional court and postpone the judgement until the constitutional court has a decision on her request.
The military prosecutor, as the plaintiff, stated to the court that Lt. Col. Burin Thongprapai, plaintiff’s witness, was unable to appear at the court due to urgent government duty. Consequently, the court postponed the witness examination to 6 March 2015.
6 March 2015
Lawyer from Thai Lawyers for Human Rights(TLHR) informed that the military court has postponed the witness examination of Lt. Col. Burin Thongprapai again due to an important government duty that made him unable to appear to the court. The court rescheduled the witness examination to 12 May 2015 at 8.30 AM.
12 May 2015
1st witness examination of Lt. Col. Burin Thongprapai, the accusor.
The Bangkok military court scheduled for the witness examination today. Today was the first date of witness examination. There were approximately 10-15 observers inside the court room. They were representatives from Finland embassy, Denmark embassy, Norway embassy, France embassy, Switzerland embassy, and New Zealand embassy, including representatives from the Delegation of European Union to Thailand. There were also some reporters from Peace TV, TV24 and Voice TV as well.
The court started the court proceedings around 9.30 AM
The military prosecutor asked Lt. Col. Burin Thongprapai about his duty and his relevance to this case.
Lt. Col. Burin Thongprapai testified that after the NCPO had seized power, the summon orders were issued to summon great amount of important persons to report to the NCPO for a conversation and making an understanding. Some of the summoned people had reported to the NCPO, however, there were also a great number of people who were not report to the NCPO as ordered.
Lt. Col. Burin Thongprapai testified that NCPO had entrusted him to make a complaint against those who defied the order and not reported to the NCPO for further criminal proceedings. The charge was to be made after several names were collected..
For this case, Jittra was listed in the order No. 44 which was stated that those who has their names on the list must report to the NCPO on 3 June 2014 at Royal Thai Army Hall, Thewet between 10.00 AM – 12.00 AM. However, Jittra did not report to the NCPO on time. Consequently, he was entrusted to make a charge against her.
During the cross-examination, Lt. Col. Burin Thongprapai answered the defense attorney’s question that when he made a charge against the defendant, he did not know that she was abroad at that time. He later found out after he met her when she had already been detained at the Crime Suppression Division. She was arrested by immigration officers while entering into Thailand. The defendant told him that she was invited to Sweden before the coup d’état to attend the labor-related conference. When the NCPO summon order was issued, she acknowledged the order and tried to contact the Thai embassy in Sweden. However, the Thai embassy did not inform the NCPO about her report.
The defense attorney showed Lt. Col. Burin the documents such as the letter explaining her reason for not being able to report to the NCPO, including the news from online newspaper which described that the defendant was trying to report to the Thai Embassy in Stockholm and the news showing that the defendant had her friend submitted her letter to Royal Thai Army Hall, Thewet. Lt. Col. Burin told the defense attorney that he has never seen any of the defendant’s document nor have seen the news that the attorney showed him. Therefore, he cannot certify any of the documents.
The defense attorney questioned that what law authorized the NCPO to issue the summons order. Lt. Col. Burin answered that it was the order that was made through the power of sovereignty.
The defense attorney raised another issue regarding the Interim Constitution 2014 which states that any acts of the NCPO shall be deemed legitimate but this law was constituted on July 2015. However, the summons order was issued before that time. The attorney asked Lt. Col. Burin that if that issue was the case, would it mean that the issuance of the NCPO summon orders are illegitimate? Lt. Col. Burin answered that the NCPO orders were already legitimate at the time of its issuance. The announcement of the interim constitution was only a formality action in document.
After the witness examination was completed, Jittra and her attorney gave an interview to the reporters informing that the next witness examination will be held on 17 July 2015. It will be the examination of a military officer who received the letter she had her friend submitted to the NCPO.
17 July 2015
Second plaintiff’s witness examination: Lt. Col. Chaiyong Wongsawan.
The judge started the witness examination at 9.30 AM. The witness was the military who was tasked with accepting the report of the summoned people according to the NCPO order No.44/2557 which summoned the listed people to report to the NCPO at the Royal Thai Army Hall, Thewet.
The witness testified that on 3 June 2014, the summon order was issued in which Jittra name was also listed. However, it appeared that Jittra did not report to the NCPO as ordered. On 9 June 2014, a friend of Jittra submitted a letter but he did not read its content.
The witness also testified that he did not have any personal grudges against Jittra.
In the cross-examination, the defense attorney asked the witness if he knows the content of the letter that Jittra’s friend submitted to him explaining that she did not intend to defy the NCPO’s order and informing the date she would report to the NCPO. A copy of a plane ticket showing Jittra’s returning date was also submitted together with the letter. In addition, Jittra contacted the Thai embassy in Sweden to report herself. However, the Thai embassy in Sweden was unable accept her report.
The witness testified that he did not know about the content of the letter because his duty was to accept the report only and he forwarded the letter to his superior instead.
The defense attorney asked the witness that, during the coup d’état, what would he do if he was summoned to report to his superior or the Head of the coup d’état but he was unable to report because he was tied up with an important affair far away.
The witness testified that he would have reported to the nearest military site.
The defense attorney also asked that in case someone want to file a complaint regarding the defying of the NCPO order, which police station would have the area of responsibility covering the location of the Royal Thai Army Hall, Thewet.
The witness answered that the Dusit police station covers the location of the Royal Thai Army Hall Thewet.
The defense attorney added that the complaint for this case was file at the Crime suppression division. Did the witness know if the Crime suppression division has the authority to accept this complaint or not. The witness answered that he did not know.
The military prosecutor asked in the re-examination that, was it true that the witness only accept the submission of the letter Jittra’s friend had submitted but he did not open and read the content of the letter explaining that Jittra did not intended to not report to the NCPO at the Royal Thai Army Hall, Thewet. The witness answered that it was true.
After the witness examination was completed, the judge read the trial record then both parties agreed to schedule the next witness examination on 8 October 2015
8 October 2015
Third plaintiff’s witness examination: Immigration police officer who arrest Jittra.
The plaintiff’s witness examination started at Bangkok military court with approximately 10 observers at the court room. Some of which are the representatives from the Switzerland embassy, the Denmark embassy and the International Commission of Jurists.
The plaintiff’s witness was one of the immigration police officers who arrested Jittra at Suvarnabhumi airport after she had returned from abroad. The witness testified that on 13 June 2014 at approximately 7.20 AM, he was notified from immigration officers that there was a blacklisted passenger in the immigration process. Then, he investigated this issue and found that Jittra was a person under arrest warrant so he arrested her for preliminary investigation. After that, he transferred Jittra to the Crime Suppression Division.
The defense attorney asked the witness if the witness knew that Jittra was outside of the country prior to the date of issue of the summons order. The witness stated that he does not know. Then, the attorney further asked that, according to the regulation, in case of coup d’état, if there is an order summoning government official to make a report, but at that time such official is outside of the area or is abroad and therefore he can not make a report to the supervisor within the time limit, what is the process to be done. The witness answered that he did not know of such regulation. He knew only that the report must be made as soon as possible.
After the witness examination was completed, the military prosecutor requested the court to issue a witness summons for the witness examination in November. However, the defendant stated that she has to go abroad for 3 months and she already obtained approval from the NCPO. Therefore, the court scheduled the next witness examination on 11 February 2016.
11 February 2016
The forth plaintiff’s witness examination: Pol. Lt. Chalit Maneeprow
Bangkok military court scheduled the witness examination of the witness, the inquiry official of the Crime Suppression Division. At 9.30 AM, the plaintiff’s witness testified that Lt.Col. Burin Thongprapai (his rank at the time), staff judge advocate, filed a complaint against those who defied the NCPO order for the prosecution. One of the person who was charged was the defendant. He was the officer who recorded Lt.Col. Burin’s complaint and signed on the police record.
This case happened at the Royal Thai Army Hall, which was in the area of responsibility of Samsen police station. However, Pol.Lt. Chalit opined that this case is related to national security and under public interest, his commander therefore approved him to make an inquiry. Pol. Lt. Chalit testified that his investigation authority was under the regulation of Crime Suppression Division.
In addition, the investigation officer interrogated Lt. Col. Chaiyong Wongsawan who was responsible for accepting the report of the person who were summoned by the NCPO orders. Lt. Col. Chaiyong said that Jittra did not report at the time prescribed.
Pol. Lt. Chalit opined that when the coup d’état has been successful and the summon orders were issued, those who were summoned by the NCPO orders are obligated to report themselves. If any person were far away, that person must report to the nearest government unit as soon as possible. In this case, the summon order was issued when Jittra was abroad and when Jittra acknowledged the order, she immediately reported to the Thai embassy in Sweden which considered as a nearest Thai government unit. Pol. Lt. Chalit opined that the defendant had already complied to the obligation to report.
Today, there were the observers from the Sweden embassy observing the examination in the court room as well. The next witness examination will be the examination of an inquiry official Pol. Lt. Praitoon Joysraku on 25 April 2016.
25 April 2016
Today, the court scheduled for plaintiff’s witness examination, Pol.Lt. Phaithoon Joisrakru, inquiry official of this case; however, the witness examination had to be postponed to July 1, 2016 due to the witness's absence and inability to contact the witness.
29 September 2016
Today was an important appointment, yet the plaintiff's witness absented. The defense attorney made a statement to the court that, due to Jittra, the defendant had to study Swedish language since the defendant was going to settle in Sweden, if the defendant must fly back and the witness of the plaintiff postpone the hearing it would be inconvenient to the defendant; therefore, the defense attorney requested the court for the case to have a witness examination for the plaintiff's witness without the presence of the defendant and the court agreed. The court scheduled the next witness examinations on 16 December 2016 and 15 February 2017, following the defendant's application.
16 December 2016
Plaintiff’s fifth witness examination: Pol. Lt. Phaithoon Joisrakru, inquiry official of this case
Today, around 10:15 AM at Bangkok Military Court was the fifth plaintiff witness Pol.Lt. Phaithoon Joisrakru, the inquiry official; furthermore, one of the officer from Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, two officers from Triumph Wokers Union and two military prosecutors also observed this witness examination.
The witness testified, he was one of the inquiry officials from Crime Suppression Division, work on the cases related to Martial Law and the violation of the NCPO orders and offences against the NCPO. The witness shall send the papers to the Central Investigation Bureau to proceed the case (at this moment the military prosecutor asked the court to allow the witness to see the document). In this case Col. Burin Thongprapai accused the defendant of violating the additional summons order No.44/2014.
The reason of accusation was from 3 June 2014 at 10:00-12:00 AM, The defendant failed to report at Royal Thai Army, Thewet; therefore, the defendant will be punished under the order No.41/2014. The penalty are imprisonment not exceeding two years or fined not exceeding to 20,000 Baht, or both.
The military prosecutor asked the witness how the order 44/2014 spread. The witness testified that it was spread through many channels including radios, televisions and internet in Thailand and other countries which any person could acknowledge, yet the defendant failed to report to the authorities. The NCPO official tried to seek for the defendant's domicile but could not find the defendant; therefore, NCPO authorised Col. Burin Thongprapai to make a complaint to inquiry official of Crime Suppression Division to proceed this case. Thus the commission of inquiry officials applied to the court for an arrest warrant.
Moreover, the witness testified to the court that on13 June 2014, Pol.Maj.Gen Sitthichai Lokanpai, immigration officials arrested the defendant at Suvarnabhumi Airport and then transferred the defendant to Crime Suppression Division's officer in the morning. In the arrest record Lt. Phaithoon Terdsakdikorn was the one who notified the charge to the defendant and Col. Burin Thongprapai was the accuser.
The witness answered the attorney’s question, the witness himself agreed to issue a prosecution order for the defendant since the defendant violates the additional summon No.44/2014. Prior to submission of such opinion, the witness had already read the case detail and the witness acknowledged that the defendant went abroad on 24 April 2014 which was the time before NCPO seized control of the country on 22 May 2014.
The witness did not know that the defendant was coming back to Thailand on May 29, 2014 and the witness never went abroad, thus the witness never knew that people who went abroad would have a plan to return to their country.
The defendant did not resist when was arrested by the officers; however, as the defendant had submitted document to the Thai embassy, the witness knew that the embassy officer was a representative of Thai state. The witness also knew that the report of investigation was emailed to Gen.Prayut Chan-ocha by e-mail from the defendant, said that the defendant was not intend to absent but the defendant was not in Thailand. This e-mail was reported in Khaosod online newspaper.
After considering both parties's evidence, the witness decided to prosecute and the commander approved since it is the case which people took interest and the defendant was a famous person. The witness also knew that the defendant was a labour activist.
The witness knew that the NCPO order No.44/2014 was issued by virtue of the Martial Law, but did not know that Martial Law did not have the provision to issue a summons. The witness’s decision was based on the NCPO order, not Martial Law.
After witness examination, the military prosecutor stated to the court that today they only intended to hear one witness and request to cancel the another witness examination to speed up the court proceedings. The defense attorney stated to the court that Jittra, the defendant was not attend the witness examination due to the defendant did not have any objection with the evidences given to the court; moreover, the defendant had classes in Sweden.
The court scheduled the next court proceedings due to the defense attorney needed to examine six witnesses, 15 February 2017 for two witnesses in Thailand and 24-25 April 2017 for another four witnesses.
15 February 2017
Around 09:30 AM at Bangkok Military Court was the day of two witnesses examination. The officers from France Embassy and Germany Embassy with the officer from Thai Lawyers for Human Rights also observed the trial. The defendant's attorney applied to the court to proceed the case without the precense of the defendant due to the defendant had to study in Sweden at the time.
The first defendant's witness: Yingcheep Atchanont who sent the notice to NCPO.
Yingcheep testified, the witness was working at ilaw, which is an organization having objectives to encourage people's participation in law making process. The witness met the defendant during work since the defendant worked on labor rights and freedom of assembly.
Yingcheep testified, on 8 June 2014, the defendant contacted the him by Facebook's messenger to request him to send a notice to NCPO saying that the defendant was unable to report within the timeframe since the defendant had a mission in Sweden. The defendant was already contacted Royal Thai Embassy in Sweden but the official at the Embassy did not accept such report, thus the defendant drafted a letter to the head of NCPO to inform the reason and sent it together with a flight ticket to Thailand to the witness via Facebook. The next day in the afternoon, the witness printed the notice as well as the flight ticket and submitted those documents to Royal Army Club at Thewet, which Lt.Col.Chaiyong received all the documents.
Yingcheep also testified that the day he went to submitted the documents, he met Sawatree Suksri who also were summonned. She was taken in custody inside the club. The witness heard from the news that Sawatree was also did not make a report within timeframe due to an errand abroad. Then, after she returned to Thailand, she was arrested but she was not prosecuted.
At this point, the military prosecutor made an objection that the witness should not mentioned an outsider who was not involved in this case. The defense attorney explained that Sawatree's case was very similar to the defendant's case and this information was on the news, thus the defense attorney wanted to submit this evidence from the news. The court said, the witness should not mention an outsider who was not involved with the witness examination and the defense attorney did not list this document in the witnesses list before. The court warned the witness if the witness mention an outsider the witness could be prosecuted and asked the witness if the witness still wanted to testify. The witness asked about the charge which the witness might be prosecuted, then the attorney described it could be a defamation. The witness testified since the witness is personally acquainted with Sawitree, the witness believed the witness would not be prosecuted and insisted that the witness wanted to testify as mentioned before.
The prosecutor asked if the witness worked with political news on internet and the witness accepted. The prosecutor continued asking that due to the witness worked together with the defendant, the defendant must also followed the news on internet, the witness testified the witness did not know if the defendant followed the news on internet or not, the witness only worked with the defendant in the freedom of assembly not including the online news.
The prosecutor also asked if the witness graduated with Law degreeand the witness also accepted. Then, the prosecutor asked did the witness know at that time Thailand ruled in a Constitutional Monarchy system, and the NCPO is currently the sovereignty, the witness accepted. Furthermore, the prosecutor asked if the sovereign's order was the law, the witness testified it was not always be the law, depends on which theory to adhere to, if referred to School of Positive Law's theory it would be the law, but, considering that there were many theories like, for example, the theory on the legitimacy of laws based on natural reason or a social contract within the nation. The court recorded that NCPO orders would be the law or not depended on population's acceptance and its context.
The prosecutor keep asking, did the witness know when did the defendant departed from Thailand, the witness testified the witness only knew that the defendant departed before the coup d'état but did not know the specific date. The next question asked about did the defendant know that NCPO had an order for the defendant to report to the authorities no later than 3 June 2014 and the witness testified that the defendant knew about the summons. Another question was did the summons was shown on the news to let people acknowledged, the witness accepted.
To add to it, the prosecutor asked did the witness know that flying trip from Sweden to Thailand could be done within one day, the witness knew. Next, the prosecutor asked the witness how many people the witness sent the obstuction notice for, the witness testified that he only sent for the defendant, the witness did it personally not professionally. However, the witness did not testified to inquiry official, the reason the witness came to testified at the court was because the defense attorney asked the witness to come.
The second defendant's witness, Ketsarin Tiawsakul from the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRC).
The witness testified, the witness worked as a case expert official at the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRC). The defendant filed a complaint to NHRC that the defendant was at Sweden, thus the defendant could not report herself according to the summons. When the defendant went to Thai Embassy in Sweden, the defentdant was informed that the case like this never happened before. Therefore the defendant asked the witness for help. The witness advised the defendant to send a letter to the legal officer of NCPO.
The witness testified that on 13 June 2014 around 06:00-07:00 AM, the witness was assigned from NHRC comissioner to wait for the defendant at the exit of the arrival gate at Suvarnabhumi Airport. When the defendant was about to arrive, the witness was informed that the defendant was confined by immigration officials. Then, the witness tried to coordinate until the immigration officer took her inside to meet the defendant. The immigration officials wanted her to witness charge notification. After the process was finished, the defendant was brought to Crime Suppression Division at Phaholyothin for the inquiry but the witness did not attend.
The prosecutor asked if the witness had any evidence to prove that the defendant went to Thai Embassy in Sweden to make a report. The witness answered that she did not have any evidence but believes that the defendant was telling the truth.
When the witness examination was finished, the court scheduled the date of the other two witnesses examination on 24-25 April 2017. One of the witnesses was the defendant who shall testify on 24 April 2017. The other was the defendant's friend who is Swedish and the defense attorney was not sure if this witness could speak English or not; therefore, the defense attorney appiled to the court to prepare the interpreter for the witness and also suggested that the defendant side shall also contacted Swedish Embassy for the interpreter in case if the court could not prepare one. The military prosecutor opposed, if proceed the interpreter could be non-neutral. The military prosecutor said it would be better if the court was the one who prepare the interpreter; either the interpreter would come from Ministry of Justice or from Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
6 July 2017
Verdict rendering
Jitra arrived at the Bangkok military court before 8.30 a.m. while representatives from embassies arrived later. Initially, the court officer told Jitra and observers to wait in the proceeding room No. 4 but later told all of them to move to proceeding room No. 3 which was a bigger room.
In the proceeding room, there were about 20 observers. Observers from embassies included the US, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands. Apart from embassies representatives, Jitra 's friends were also present in the court to show their support.
In the proceeding room, there were about 20 observers. Observers from embassies included the US, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands. Apart from embassies representatives, Jitra 's friends were also present in the court to show their support.
Around 9.20 a.m. the military court judges began reading their verdict, aquitted Jitra's charge on the ground that Jitra had no intention to defy NCPO order and had strong evidences to proved that she had take all necessary measures to comply with the order
It also need to noted that while the judge read a verdict, the court clerk had informed observers to stop taking note.
It also need to noted that while the judge read a verdict, the court clerk had informed observers to stop taking note.
The military court's verdict of this case was final because, according to the Military Court Act Section 61 Paragraph 2, offenses which occur during the period of martial law and tried in military court are not entitled for appeal.
After the military court rendered a verdict, Jitra was briefly interviewed by multiple journalists. She stated that she initially did not think that her case will proceed to trial.
However, when the military prosecutor decided to proceed with the case, she was still confident that she will win the case. Jitra also mentioned that, in any case, those who defied the NCPO order should not be prosecuted because the purpose of summoning is to resolve disputes and enhance reconciliation.
As for her future political activities, Jitra has no immediate plans and needs to take into consideration the political environment.
After the military court rendered a verdict, Jitra was briefly interviewed by multiple journalists. She stated that she initially did not think that her case will proceed to trial.
However, when the military prosecutor decided to proceed with the case, she was still confident that she will win the case. Jitra also mentioned that, in any case, those who defied the NCPO order should not be prosecuted because the purpose of summoning is to resolve disputes and enhance reconciliation.
As for her future political activities, Jitra has no immediate plans and needs to take into consideration the political environment.
Verdict
Summarry of a verdict of the Court of the First Instance
On 1 June 2014, the National Council for Peace and Order issued Order No. 44/2014. This order summoned individuals including Jitra to report at the Army Convention Center, Deves on 3 June 2014 between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 p.m.
On 1 June 2014, the National Council for Peace and Order issued Order No. 44/2014. This order summoned individuals including Jitra to report at the Army Convention Center, Deves on 3 June 2014 between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 p.m.
After the period was due, Jitra did not report to the NCPO. Col Burin Thongprapai then reported the case to an inquiry official at the Crime Suppression Division. The police later requested the Bangkok military court to issue an arrest warrant against Jitra. On 13 June 2014, Jitra was arrested at the airport upon her arrival in Thailand. The immigration officials later transferred her to the Crime Suppression Division official.
The defendant testified on her behalf saying that she was aware of her summon by the NCPO on 1 June 2014. At that time the defendant was in Sweden and had bought the return ticket which was scheduled to leave to Thailand on 13 June 2014 before the summon order had been issued. The defendant also testified that changing the schedule of her return flight would be costly and will not guarantee that the defendant will arrive in Thailand on time as Thailand was 6 hours ahead of Sweden and travelling by plane will take several hours.
The defendant then travelled to the Royal Thai Embassy in Stockholm on 3 June 2014 which was the time stated in the summon order. The defendant also had her Swedish friend testify in the court to affirm that Jitra went to the embassy in Stockholm. The defendant also presented a video record of her discussion with the staff at the Thai Embassy on 3 June 2014 to the court as evidence. The Embassy staff, however, informed Jitra that the Ambassador as well as the Army Attaché was not present at the embassy. The embassy officer informed the defendant that the embassy cannot accept the report on behalf of the NCPO.
On 9 June 2014, the defendant asked Yingcheep Atchanont to bring her clarification letter to submit to the NCPO. A prosecution's witness who is a military officer that register those who come to report to the NCPO testified that he was presented a letter by a person on behalf of the defendant, as the defendant had claimed. The defendant then proved that she had taken all possible measures to comply with the NCPO order.
The defendant had presented strong evidence to support her claim while the prosecution has no strong evidence to proved that the defendant intended to defy the NCPO Order. The case shall be dismissed.