- iLaw Website
- Documentation Center
Case
Case name
Tara : Posting Banpot's audio clips
Lèse-majesté
Name of persons / Name of Media
Tara
Case status
คำอธิบายสถานะคดี ภาษาอังกฤษ
Judgment / End of trial
Status of Accused
Sentenced to prison
Offense / order
Article 14 (1) Computer Related Crime Act, Article 14 (3) Computer Related Crime Act, Article 14 (5) Computer Related Crime Act, Article 112 Criminal Code
Summary
Tara provided links to Banpot's audio clips that were deemed as constituting lèse-majesté on his website www.okthai.com. He was arrested on 25 January 2015 and was then accused of violating Article 112 of Criminal Code and Section14 (1), (3), (5) of the Computer-related Crimes Act.
He initially denied all charges and he stated that he created a website about health issues to earn advertising revenue. He uploaded the link on his website because there was content about healthcare in the audio clips and he did not listen to all the audio clips before uploading them. However, he is unable to receive bail and the trial took longer than a year. As a result, he then changed his plea to guilty.
Bangkok Military Court sentenced for 3 years and 4 months each counts, there were 6 counts, the total punisment is 18 years and 24 months.
Basic information
Background of accused
Tara is from Nakorn Pathom Province. At the time of his arrest, he was 57 years old and worked fulltime as a cashier for an apartment in Bangkok. He was interested in web design and learned to make a website by himself. He also had a second job selling herbal medicine online. OKThai was one of the websites he created by himself to earn an income.
Tara's son said that he did not have much of an interest in politics and has never joined any political movement.
Military prosecutor is a plaintiff in this case.
Legal Claims
Lèse-majesté
-
Form of restriction on freedom
Charge filed
-
Type of media
Website / Blog
-
Province
Bangkok
-
Court
Bangkok Military Court
-
Black case
คำอธิบายคดีดำ ภาษาอังกฤษ
Court: ศาลทหารกรุงเทพ No: 121ก./2558 Date: 2015-04-23
Details of offence according to charge
Tara posted links of the audio clips of 'Bunpodj' that were deemed to be lese majeste on the website www.okthai.com which he created to sell his product online.
The military prosecutor prosecuted Tara under the lese majeste and Computer-related Crimes Act for 6 counts as follow:
The first audio clip named 'Uncle 393' was posted on 6 January 2015 until 25 January 2015 on the defendant’s website, the OKThai. The link was posted on the website to link to www.mediafire.com where people can listen or download the clip.
The second audio clip named 'Uncle 394' was posted on 10 January 2015 until 25 January 2015 on the defendant’s website, the OKThai. The link was posted on the website to link to www.mediafire.com where people can listen or download the clip.
The third audio clip named 'Uncle 395' was posted on 13 January 2015 until 25 January 2015 on the defendant’s website, the OKThai. The link was posted on the website to link to www.mediafire.com where people can listen or download the clip.
The fourth audio clip named 'Uncle 396' was posted on 17 January 2015 until 25 January 2015 on the defendant’s website, the OKThai. The link was posted on the website to link to www.mediafire.com where people can listen or download the clip.
The fifth audio clip named 'Uncle 397' was posted on 20 January 2015 until 25 January 2015 on the defendant’s website, the OKThai. The link was posted on the website to link to www.mediafire.com where people can listen or download the clip.
The sixth audio clip named 'Uncle 393' was posted on 24 January 2015 until 25 January 2015 on the defendant’s website, the OKThai. The link was posted on the website to link to www.mediafire.com where people can listen or download the clip.
All 6 audio clips, according to the complaint, contained a narrator from someone who used the name 'Bunpodj'.
In addition, after Tara was arrested, the police also held a press conference stating that Tara was a member of the Bunpodj network which aims to use online media to incite public disorder and hatred in society, especially through insulting the monarchy. This network has been active since 2011.
Circumstance of arrest
Tara was arrested on 25 January 2015 around 1.00pm at Victory Monument. Tara had an appointment with a customer to deliver his product. He believed that the customer was a plain-clothes police officer that led other police officers to arrest him. Around 10 uniformed military officers and 4-5 DSI officers arrested him without resistance. Tara was then taken to a military camp. He was investigated in the military camp and confessed to all charges. On 30 January 2015, a DSI officer officially informed him of the accusations and took him to the Bangkok Military Court to request that his detention be extended by the court.
Progress of case
25 January 2015
Tara was arrested at Victory Monument and was taken to a military camp for interogation.
30 January 2015
Tara was taken to Bangkok Military Court to request for a provisional detention order from the court and then sent to Bangkok Remand Prison.
7 July 2015
Deposition Examination
At 9.30 am, the Bangkok Military Court scheduled for a deposition examination of Lese Majeste case against Tara. The defendant stated to the court that he would like to postpone the deposition examination because he did not yet receive his complaint which was already sent by his lawyer through the correctional official.
The court then postponed the trial to 7 August 2015.
7 August 2015
Bangkok Military Court scheduled to have a deposition examination. The court appeared on the bench around 9.50. There were 5 observers in the court room. Before the trial started the military prosecutor asked the court to order a closed door trial. The defense lawyer objected because today there will not be any procedure on the lese majeste content. After the court considered, it agrred with the defense side and tried this case in public.
The court therefore read the complaint briefly and asked the defendant for his plead. Tara denied all charges.
The military prosecutor stated that the detention period of this case must start from 30 January because the detention period under matial law is an administrative power not the criminal punishment. The defense lawyer objected that the detention between 25-30 January must be considered as a detention period because the defendant was interrogated everyday during that time so it is a detention for the criminal procedure.
The courted listened to all arguments and proposed to argue on this matter again during the witness examination and scheduled for the evidence examination on 22 October 2015.
22 October 2015
Evidence Examination
The military prosecutor asked to have 11 witnesses including a police officer as an accusor, a military officer who arrested the defendant, investigator who listened to the clips and wrote the script, a linguistic who read the message and gave opinion, an officer who examined the seized computer, an officer who examined the DNA from the seized computer, etc.
The defendant asked to have 3 witnesses which are Tara himself and computer expert.
The court schedule to have the first witness hearing on 21 December 2015.
21 December 2015
All relevant parties were present at the court but the court officer informed that the first witness who is Pol.Col.Olarn Sukkasem for Technology Crime Suppression Division could not come to testify. Both parties agreed to postpone the hearing to 25 March 2016.
25 March 2016
There were 3 observers attended the courtroom. Once the judges appeared on the bench, the military prosecutor asked to tried this case in camera. The judges immediately ordered to have a close trial for the benefit of public order and told observers to leave. The witness hearing had started.
8 July 2016
The court scheduled for a second witness hearing. There were two observers attended the courtroom. Once the judges appeared on the bench, they asked obeservers to leave the room because this case is a close trial.
27 October 2016
The court scheduled for a third witness hearing. The court officer told that the witness who listened and wroted the content from the clips could not come to testify.
1 December 2016
The defense lawyer and Tara's son came to the court to apply for bail. They submitted 400,000 baht cash as deposit which they received a support from the fund for political prisoners.
They submitted a request stating that Tara is a normal person who has no influence to interfere with the evidence. Tara also has to take care of his family, his mother is 89 years old and cannot take care of herself, his two kids also need support from him to continue studying, he has no reason to flee. While the trial in military court tool too long, only 2 witness hearings were held after Tara was detained for more than a year, the fundamental rights of Tara therefore was unnecessary limitted.
Around 14.00 the court ordered that the plaintiff objected that bail request because this case carries severe penalty. The court denied the bail request given that there is a reason to believe that if the defendant was released, he will be flee.
7 August 2015
The Bangkok Military Court was scheduled to have a deposition examination. The court began trial at around 9.50. There were 5 observers in the court room. Before the trial started, the military prosecutor asked the court to order a closed door trial. The defense lawyer objected as the trial today will not have any procedure on the lese majeste content. After the court considered, it agreed with the defense lawyer and tried this case in public.
The court read the complaint briefly and asked the defendant for his plea. Tara denied all charges.
The military prosecutor stated that the detention period of this case must start from 30 January because the detention period under martial law is an administrative order, not a criminal procedure. The defense lawyer objected that the detention between 25-30 January must be considered as a detention period because the defendant was interrogated every day during that time. Thus, it is a detention for the criminal procedure.
The courted listened to all arguments and proposed to argue on this matter again during the witness examination and scheduled for the evidence examination on 22 October 2015.
22 October 2015
Evidence Examination
The military prosecutor asked to have 11 witnesses including the police officer that was an accuser, the military officer who arrested the defendant, the investigator who listened and transcribed the audio clip, the linguist who read the message and opined, the officer who examined the seized computer, the officer who examined the DNA from the seized computer, etc.
The defendant asked to have 3 witnesses which includes Tara himself and the computer expert. The court schedule to have the first witness hearing on 21 December 2015.
21 December 2015
All relevant parties were present at the court but the court officer informed that the first witness, Pol. Col. Olarn Sukkasem from the Technology Crime Suppression Division could not be present at the court to testify. Both parties agreed to postpone the hearing to 25 March 2016.
25 March 2016
There were 3 observers who attended the courtroom. Once the judges were present on the bench, the military prosecutor asked for the case to be tried on camera. The judges immediately ordered to have a closed door trial for the benefit of public order and told observers to leave. The witness hearing then commenced.
8 July 2016
The court scheduled for a second witness hearing. There were two observers who attended the courtroom. Once the judges were present on the bench, they asked observers to leave the room because this case is a closed-door trial.
27 October 2016
The court scheduled for a third witness hearing. The court officer told that the witness who listened and wrote the content from the clips could not be present to testify.
1 December 2016
The defense lawyer and Tara's son came to the court to apply for bail. They submitted 400,000 Baht cash as deposit which they received from a fund for political prisoners. They submitted a request stating that Tara is a normal person who has no outside influence to interfere with the evidence. Tara also has to take care of his family, as his mother is 89 years old and is unable to take care of herself. In addition, his two kids also need financial support from him to continue studying. Given these factors, he has no reason to flee. While the trial in military court went for a lengthy period of time, only 2 witness hearings were held after Tara was detained for more than a year. Thus, the fundamental rights of Tara therefore were unnecessary limited.
Around 14.00 the court ordered that the plaintiff objected the bail request because this case has a severe penalty. The court denied the bail request given that there is a reason to believe that if the defendant was released, he will flee.
3 March 2017
Tara was brought to the Bangkok Military Court and had a chance to consult with his lawyers. Tara changed his mind and decided to confess to all his charges because trial went on for a lengthy period of time and the political situation did not seem to improve. Tara then told the court officer that he wanted to change his plea. The court officers also stated that the witness, who is a DSI officer, could not be present to testify today.
The officer left the courtroom momentarily for 10 minutes and returned with a trial record saying that the defendant already changed his plea and the court scheduled to read the verdict on 26 June 2017. Tara asked if it was possible to hear the verdict sooner, the officer replied in the negative as all the courtrooms had been occupied.
9 August 2017,
Bangkok Military Court scheduled to read a verdict.
The judges appeared on the bench today around 9.50 and started reading a verdict. This case the defendant firstly denied all charges and after 2 plaintiff witness hearings he decided to change his plea to guilty.
The only issue that need to be considered is how to count the detention day of the defendant. The defendant argued that he was arrested by military officers on 25 January 2015 and detained since then but later sent to prison on 30 January 2015. The detention period should start counting on 25 not 30. The court sees that the two witnesses admitted that the defendant was detained in military camp since 25. Even though it is the detention under martial law not a criminal procedure but it is still a detention for the prosecution of this case and the defendant had lost his freedom. The military court then ruled that the detention period should start counting from 25 January 2015.
The court sees that the defendant has committed offenses as charged which is against the Penal Code Section 112 and Computer-related Crimes Act Section 14(1) (3) (5).
The court sentenced the defendant 5 years in prison for each counts. The defendant confessed then the penalty was reduced by one third to 3 years and 4 months each counts. The defendant has committed 6 counts together the penalty is 18 years and 24 months.
The defendant asked the court to gave him light sentence and suspend the sentence. The court sees that it is the crime against the King which severely effects people's feeling. The court has already provided a light sentence so there is no ground to suspend the sentence.
