- Important case
Siraphop: Article 112 (lèse majesté)
Latest Update: 11/03/2021
Defendant
Siraphop
Case Status
On trial in Court of Appeal
Case Started
2014
Complainant / Plaintiff
Technology Crime Suppression Devision
Table of Content
Siraphop who used “Rungsira” as his pseudonym was a poet and a blogger who wrote political articles and poems on his own blog and Facebook.
Siraphop was arrested by military official while he was traveling to Udon Thani province, as a result of defying NCPO summons. After that he was detained by an officer at Technology Crime Suppression Division (TCSD) in order to investigate for lèse majesté charges.
Siraphop faced five counts of charges under Article 112 of Criminal Code (lèse majesté) and Section 14 of Computer Crimes Act because of his three writings on his online blog. The trial in military court took too long while Siraphop was detained without bail. On 11 June 2019, the 8th request, the court allowed him on bail. Later, NCPO ordered to transfer the case back to normal court.
After the hearings, Criminal Court read a verdict found Siraphop guilty for 2 counts and dismissed one count. The court ruled 3 years in prison each counts and reduced by one fourth. In total Siraphop has to be imprisoned for 4 years and 6 months but he was detained longer before the verdict.
After the hearings, Criminal Court read a verdict found Siraphop guilty for 2 counts and dismissed one count. The court ruled 3 years in prison each counts and reduced by one fourth. In total Siraphop has to be imprisoned for 4 years and 6 months but he was detained longer before the verdict.
Defendant Background
Siraphop, 52 years old, was a Redshirt activist who mainly campaigned via internet by using his psuedonym "Rungsira". Before being arrested, he was a contractor in Songkla province.
Learn more about Siraphop, read Siraphop: The Hunted Poet [112 The Seires]
Offense
Article 14 (3) Computer Related Crime Act, Article 14 (5) Computer Related Crime Act, Article 112 Criminal Code
Allegation
Siraphop was accused of using alias “Rungsira” wrote articles against the government since 2010 and presented the information that insulted the royal institution on Prachatai’s blog since 2009. He also is the owner of the Facebook named “Rungsira” He was accused to posted a content that deemed to be lese majeste 3 times
Circumstance of Arrest
Siraphop was restrained by military officers during his travel from Kalasin to Udonthani. Plainclothes military officers drove Toyota Fortuner to crosscut Siraphop’s van while entering Kalasin's downtown. There were at least five fully-armed plainclothes military officers getting out of the car.
Moreover, there was a group of officers from another car parking behind the van. The van was besieged and the military officers told every passenger to lie down on the rain-wet road.
Siraphop and the van's driver were arrested and detained at the government office in Kalasin for the first night, and then kept into custody at Sriharaj Dechochai military camp in Khonkaen for the second night.
After that, he was transferred to Bangkok for a further detention until seeing out its 7-day term.
Trial Observation
No information
Black Case
83 ก./2557
Court
Bangkok Military Court, Criminal Court
Additional Info
See the detail of the defying of summon order case
Reference
No information
1 July 2014
Siraphop was reportedly charged for defying the NCPO’s announcement No. 41/2557 at the Crime Suppression Division (CSD) and was detained there after acknowledging the accusation.
2 July 2014
Siraphop was taken to the Military Court to request for further detention; however, he was granted bail and released from the Bangkok Remand Prison.
Despite being bailed out, he was arrested again and brought to the Technology Crime Suppression Division (TCSD) office for interrogation for violating Article 112 of Criminal Code and Computer-related Crime Act.
The authority detained Siraphop at the Thung Song Hong police station for one night before bring him to the court the request for detention order in the next day.
The second arrest by the TCSD officers was due to a report filed to the police on 30 June 2014, alleging that the messages on his Facebook and his poem on Prachathai’s web board posted by him are considered offensive.
3 July 2014
Siraphop was taken to Criminal Court in order to request for detention order. His lawyer as well as his relatives submitted the request for temporary release. However, the documents were incompleted, he was then taken to detain at the Bangkok Remand Prison.
5 September 2014
After sixth phrase of pre-trial detention under the Criminal Court’s jurisdiction, the inquiry officer considered that this case falls under the jurisdiction of the Military Court according to NCPO announcement NO. 37/2014.
8 September 2014
Siraphop was brought to the Bangkok Military Court to request for a pre-trail detention order. Earlier the detention orders were issued under the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court.
12 September 2014
At the Bangkok Military Court, the military prosecutor submitted a request to extend Siraphop’s pre-trial detention to the court because the military prosecutor just received a case's file on 8 September 2014 so he didn’t have enough time to studied the case's file.
Siraphop's lawyer opposed the pre-trial detention given that the military court did not have a jurisdiction over this case so it cannot authorize the pre-trial detention order
Around 10.00 am. the court proceed with a hearing as the lawyer expressed the motion to oppose the pre-trial detention request of the military prosecutor.
The Military Court confirmed its jurisdiction over the case given that the messages according to charge is still accessible. Offenses according to the charge therefore continue.
As a verdict of the Supreme Court laid the principle that a defamation offense that committed by means of publication is an on going offense throughout the time it appear. The offense of this case then considered as an ongoing offense and was falls within the jurisdiction of the Military Court.
If an offense of the accused falled under the jurisdiction of the Military Court, other offenses will fall under its jurisdiction as well.
The lawyer however argued that the offenses were not continue but end on the date that messages had been posted which were before the NCPO issued an announcement NO. 37/2557. This case therefore did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Military Court.
The lawyer asked the court to write its judicial decision in the request should the court affirm its jurisdiction over the case.
The Court further stated that the Criminal Court had already decided to put this case under the Military Court's jurisdiction. If the Military Court rejected the case, it would probably be tossed back and forth between the two courts.
The Military Court also viewed that during the detention phase, it has no authority to render any decision concerning jurisdiction as it is the matter of laws. Objection then can only be made after the court accepted the charge.
If a petition concering the jurisdiction is filed to the Court after the court accepted the charge, the court would have to clartify a matter concerning the jurisdiction before preceed the case.
The military prosecutor however argued that the Military Court had jurisdiction over the case.
The court later granted the seventh phase pre-trail detention.
Siraphop’s lawyer filed an appeal against the court’s decision as soon as the detention order was issued, citing that the court did not clarify the matter concerning the court's jurisdiction that it inquired, the detention order then invalid.
The court accepted the lawyer's appeal but clarify that
The inquiry officers recognized the jurisdiction of the Military Court and had request the Criminal Court to withdrew the detention order where the Criminal Court granted. The officers then requested the Military Court for the detention order according to the court memo on 8 September 2014.
In the court memo dated 12 September 2014, the military prosecutor mentioned that the Military Court had jurisdiction over the case. The court then see that there were no enought fact to review. The court will not review the appeal during the pre-trial phase.
In the same day, the accused deposited cash in the some of 300,000 baht to request for temporary release in lèse-majesté case and cash deposit in the sum of 40,000 baht to request for temporary release in the defying NCPO order charge.
The court did not approve the request in lèse-majesté case given that his accusation had an effect on peace, and public moral. Moreover, a person who commits such act shall receive high degree of punishment. If the accused was granted a temporary release, the court was concerned that he might flee.
In case of defying NCPO’s summon order, the court didn't grant the request for temporary release because the defendant was being accused with lèse majesté in which the request for temporary release was denied. It is then not necessary to review his request in this case.
Moreover, the court didn’t allow the lawyer to make photocopies of the court's proceedings of this case. The lawyer can only copy it by hand writing.
13 November 2014
Deposition Examination
The Bangkok Military Court scheduled for deposition examination at 9.00 AM but the court appeared on the bench at 10.30 AM because Department of Corrections brought the accused to the court late so the trial started late.
The military prosecutor requested the court to try this case behind the closed door because it afraid that incorrect messages will spread into the society and may effect on peace and security of the state. The court then order to try the case behind the close door throughout the proceedure.
The defense lawyer opposed the court's order by stated that the secret trial constituted the breach of the section 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
In addition, there were no vulgar language in the statement of accusation. The defense lawyer then requested the court for the public trial as much as the content can be revealed. The court can order to trial behind the closed door particularly when there is some improper content.
However, the court insited its order to trial behind the closed door throughout the proceedure. The court then ask the defendant’s daughter and the observers from United Nations Human Rights Council to leave the court room.
After the proceeding, the defense lawyer said that he had requested the court to postpone the preliminery hearing. The court then rescheduled the it on 21 January 2015.
21 January 2015
Preliminary Hearing
The Bangkok Military Court ordered to trial Siraphop's lèse-majesté case behind the closed door. The defendant's relatives and observers who were already in the courtroom were not allowed to present in the court room.
After the proceedings, the defense lawyer said that the first examination of witness for the prosecution has been scheduled on 2 April 2015. Overall, there were 10 witnesses for the prosecution and 3 witnesses for the defense.
As for the strategy, the lawyer intend to prove that contents according to the charges were not constituded Lese Majeste offences.
2 April 2015
Witness Hearing for the Prosecution
Verdict
No information