Case

22 December 2015

Prachatai reported that Pol. Col. Tawatchai Pongwiwattanachai and some police officers arrested Wichai under an arrest warrant from Bangkok Military Court from a carpark of a dormitory in Chiang Mai. The arrest happened after one Facebook user reported to the police that someone used his name to create a Facebook account and posted messages which was deemed to insult the King. As the Facebook user was afraid that he would be arrested and prosecuted, he then decided to report to the TCSD police that he did not post such messages. 

 

After the police received a report, they investigated and found some clues that the Facebook account creator is Wichai who was a former close friend with the injured person before they had a quarrel previously. Out of anger, Wichai then used the name and some information of the injured person to create a Facebook account and posted lèse majesté messages to frame the injured person.

 

23 December 2015 

Officers transferred Wichai to an inquiry officer at the TCSD headquarters before detaining him at  the Thung Song Hong Police Station.

 

24 December 2015 

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) reported that an inquiry officer from TCSD took Wichai to the Bangkok Military Court to request for a provisional detention for 12 days. 

 

In the request submitted to the court, the inquiry officer stated that there was an injured person who reported that Wichai created a fake Facebook account and posted and shared video clips, pictures and messages containing lèse majesté content 12 times. After the laptop and mobile phones were inspected, some information related to the fake account was found.

The inquiry officer also stated that he needed to interrogate 5 more witnesses and wait for the mobile phones inspection report and Wichai's fingerprint inspection report. Wichai objected to the request because he did not commit any offense. However, the court allowed Wichai’s detention as requested. Wichai did not request for bail because he did not have any property to guarantee. 

 

28 January 2016

 

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) reported that the inquiry officer from TCSD submitted a request to Bangkok Military Court for a 4th provisional detention by stating that this case is with the committee under the Royal Thai Police who will consider whether to prosecute the case.

 

Wichai's lawyer submitted a motion to object the provisional detention by stating that the rest of the investigative process does not related to the accused. There is no necessity to detain the accused for any investigation as the accused is a normal person and does not intendt to flee. The detention during the investigation will negatively impact the economic status and the basic rights of the accused. However, the military court considered the issue, recognised the necessity of the detention and allowed for the detention of Wichai for 12 more days. 

 

19 February 2016

 

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) reported that the Bangkok Military Court ordered the 6th provisional detention to detain Wichai given that the investigation process of this case had not finished. If the accused was released, there was a chance for the defendant to interfere with the evidence and/or flee because this case carried a severe penalty. 

After the court ordered for the detention of Wichai, the defense lawyer submitted a request to receive a copy of the trial record. The court ordered that 'The Court had read and both parties already signed to acknowledge that the accused made his own motion to object the detention, Thus, there is no reason to make a copy and the court does not approve the request.' 

 

24 June 2016

Deposition Examination 

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) reported that Bangkok Military Court started the trial by reading the complaint to Wichai. The defendant denied all charges. The Court then scheduled for an evidence examination on 18 October 2016.

 

The military prosecutor also submitted a request to the court asking to record the trial of the case with a camera because it is a national security case. The court considered and ordered that for the benefit of public order, this trial will be recorded with a camera. The defense lawyer submitted a motion to object this order because this is a criminal case which should to be tried in public.

 

18 October 2016 

Evidence Examination  

 

27 February 2017

Plaintiff witness examination 

 

The Court scheduled for the first plaintiff's witness examination. After the judges appeared on the bench, the military prosecutor said that the witness, Suwit,  who should be present on this day, was not present to testify because the warrant from the court cannot be issued. The first witness examination therefore was postponed to 22 May 2017.

 

 

22 May 2017

 

Plaintiff witness examination 

 

Before the court appeared on the bench, an officer informed that the witness did not come to the court and asked the defendant about what will be do. This can be understood that he asked 'Will the defendant confess?'. However, the defense lawyer replied in the negative.

 

After that, the officer went out of the court room and the court clerk and the military prosecutor came to the court room individually. The judges appeared on the bench around 11.00 am. The plaintiff said that the witness did not come to the court because when the warrant was delivered to the provided address, the witness's name was absent. The plaintiff still want this witness to testify but will bring the next witness to testify first in the next trial. The defense lawyer told the judges that today the defendant want to change his plea and will confess to all the charges.

 

The lawyer told the court that they will submit a statement to enter the confession and also asked the court to quickly provide the judgement. The lawyer also said that the statement had already been prepared and can be submitted today. The Court then scheduled to read the judgement on 9 June 2017. 

 

The statement that was submitted to the court today stated that the defendant has never committed any offense before and that the defendant has a temporary residence, a job and an honest profession. The statement also stated that the defendant is responsible to take care his family and that his father is very old, disabled and suffers from hypertension. In addition, the statement also stated that his mother does not have any job, his brother-in-law has paralysis, and that he has to take care of 2 nephews who are still studying. The defendant also expressed contrite for what he has done and is loyal to HM the King, the Queen and the Heir. He also joined an activity 'Bike for Dad'. The defendant begged for the Court's mercy to punish the defendant with the lightest possible penalty, to give the defendant another chance to repent, and that the defendant will not return to commit a crime again. 

 

 

9 June 2017

 

Verdict Annoucement

 

Wichai was taken from the prison and arrived at Bangkok Military Court around 8.30 am. Among those present are journalists from AFP and Bangkok Post in addition to observers from iLaw. However, security officials at the court barred journalists and observers from entering the courtroom due to unspecified 'regulation'. The senior security officer also did not allow journalists from AFP enter the court building and told them to wait outside the building. He justified this with the same 'regulation' although the court did not order the trial to be in secret. Thus, only Wichai and his lawyer was present in the court room.