- Important case
Chayapa: posted rumours of double coup on Facebook
Latest Update: 14/01/2017
Defendant
Chayapa
Case Status
Judgment / End of trial
Case Started
2015
Complainant / Plaintiff
No information
Table of Content
Chayapa was accused for posting messages on Facebook about a double coup and insulting messages to the King. She was arrested on 19 June 2015 and the request for bail was denied.
Chayapa was charged for 5 counts. She was taken to the military court without advance notification or lawyers. The court sentenced her to 14 years and 60 months and reduced to 7 years and 30 months.
Defendant Background
No information
Offense
Article 14 (1) Computer Related Crime Act, Article 14 (2) Computer Related Crime Act, Article 112 Criminal Code, Article 116 Criminal Code
Allegation
According to the complaint prepared by the military prosecutor, Chayapa was accused of committing several counts as the followings;
1) On 10 June 2015, the defendant posted a picture of a military tank and an armoured car with some messages on Facebook account of Chanisa Boonyajinda (“Ninja Ruk See Daeng” or Ninja Loves Red Color). Such messages were allegedly inaccurate and might mislead people to misunderstand HM the King.
2) On 11 June 2015, the defendant posted messages on Facebook of Chanisa Boonyajinda (Ninja Ruk See Daeng) which could possibly be referred to His Majesty the King and Her Royal Highness Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn.
3) On 11 June 2015, the defendant posted a picture of a military tank and an armoured car on a Facebook page of Chanisa Boonyajinda (Ninja Ruk See Daeng), with an alleged caption describing that these vehicles were moving towards the capital. This caption and picture might allegedly mislead people to perceive that there could possibly be an unrest situation in Bangkok or a double coup was on its way to seize the power from General Prayut Chan-ocha’s government. Moreover, the picture might also mislead that such military movement was just wasting the government budget collected from the citizen’s taxes.
4) On 12 June 2015, the defendant posted some messages on Facebook page of Chanisa Boonyajinda (Ninja Ruk See Daeng) allegedly saying that the Commander in Chief of the Royal Thai Army was pressured to initiate the double coup. These inaccurate messages could possibly mislead the readers to understand that there is a severe conflict within the high-ranking army officials.
5) On 12 June 2015, the defendant posted a picture of an armoured car on Facebook page of Chanisa Boonyajinda (Ninja Ruk See Daeng) with a caption allegedly saying that almost 30 armoured cars were moving from Bangna to Nawamin. These picture and caption could mislead people to perceive that such military movement might cause an unrest in Bangkok or the double coup.
All aforementioned acts of the defendant are perceived as acts that defaming the King according to Section 112 and 116 of the Criminal Code, and Article 14 (1) (2) and (5) of the Computer-related Crimes Act.
Circumstance of Arrest
On 19 June 2015, it was reported that the police of the Technology Crime Suppression Division (TCSD) and soldiers arrested Chayapa at home as authorised by the power of Article 44 with an absence of an arrest warrant.
Chayapa was then taken to the military camp of the 11th Infantry Regiment King's Bodyguard for an investigation before Chayapa was handed to the police on 23 June. Chayapa was preliminarily charged with raising unrest and disaffection amongst the people in a manner likely to cause disturbance according to Article 116 of the Criminal Code and the Computer-related Crimes Act.
After examining her Facebook, Chayapa was later accused of defaming the King and the arrest warrant was subsequently issued by a military court.
Trial Observation
No information
Black Case
154/2558
Court
Bangkok Military Court
Additional Info
No information
Reference
No information
19 June 2015
Reportedly, the TCSD officials and soldiers arrested Chayapa at home as authorised by Article 44 without an arrest warrant before taking the defendant to the base of the 11th Infantry Regiment King's Bodyguard.
25 June 2015
Police escorted Chayapa to a military court in Bangkok for a custody. Despite Chayapa’s bail submission with THB 400,000 guarantee, the court rejected the bail.
27 June 2015
During the 3rd custody, another bail request was submitted. The court again rejected the request.
15 December 2015
Deposition Examination
Thai Lawyers for Human Rights' Facebook reported that during the court hearing, Chayapa was taken to the court without a lawyer and family. As Chayapa pleaded guilty, the court cut the prison term in half from 14 years and 60 months to 7 years and 30 months.
In the afternoon, the lawyer submitted a request rejecting the allegedly unlawful court procedure because the court failed to inform the lawyer about the hearing which negatively affected Chayapa’s right to an attorney.
The submitted request by the lawyer mentioned that the court hearing which was carried out without the lawyer’s presence was against Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code. According to Section 173, under the offecse with prison punishment, before beginning to take into the consideration, the court shall ask whether the defendant has a lawyer, if there is no lawyer and the defendant wants one, the court shall appoint the lawyer for the defendant.
Furthermore, Chayapa had not received any notification or notified about the court schedule in advance. During the night of 14 December 2015, the official of the Department of Corrections notified Chayapa about the upcoming court schedule at short notice. As Chayapa was imprisoned, there was no time for Chayapa to inform the lawyer or relatives.
Although, on 14 December 2015, the lawyer was actually at the military court to oppose the custody order of another case and to request for an appointment date of the hearing of this case, the lawyer was neither informed nor received a notification about the schedule from the military court in Bangkok. The court officer however informed the lawyer on that day that there had not been any appointment for Chayapa’s case and the lawyer would be notified in advance if there were any appointment of the case.
Nevertheless, the lawyer has not been notified about the schedule by the court but later on heard from the defendant after the officer of the Department of Corrections permitted the defendant to make a phone call to get an assistance from the lawyer, this was after the court already handed down its verdict.
Additionally, the lawyer once submitted a request to have a copy of the complaint on 22 September 2015, but the military court rejected the request by reasoning that the complaint would later on be delivered to the defendant. The lawyer received a copy of the indictment after the second submission requesting to transcribe it on 8 October 2015. Even though the lawyer had already been appointed to and had continuously followed up the case, but the lawyer had never been informed about the hearing date by the court officer.
Verdict
15 December 2015
Verdict of the Court of First Instance
The Court of First Instance decided that the defendant committed 5 criminal counts.
For the first two counts, the defendant was found guilty of defaming the King according to Article 112 of the Criminal Code, and importing falsified information into a computer system which threatens the security of the state and other people according to Article 14 (1) (2) and (5) of the Computer-related Crimes Act. The defendant was therefore sentenced to a prison term according to Article 112 due to it has the harshest punishment. As a result, the defendant was liable for 5 years in prison per one count which led to a total of a 10 years prison term. As the defendant pleaded guilty, the prison term was halved to 2 years and 6 months per a count, so it became 4 years and 12 months in total.
For the other three counts, the defendant was found guilty of raising unrest and disaffection amongst the people in a manner likely to cause disturbance in the nation according to Article 116 of the Criminal Code, and importing falsified information into a computer system in a manner likely to negatively affect the security of the state and other people according to Article 14 (1) (2) and (5) of the Computer related-Crime Act. The defendant was sentenced to a prison term according to Section 116 due to it has the harshest punishment. As a result, the defendant was liable for 3 years in prison per one count which led to a total of a 9 years prison term. As the defendant pleaded guilty, the prison term was halved to 1 year and 6 months per a count, so it became 3 years and 18 months in total.
The defendant was sentenced to a total of 7 years and 30 months in prison together with a confiscation of the defendant’s mobile phone; a property in dispute.