- Important case
Sudsanguan : Protested in front of Civil Court
Latest Update: 08/05/2017
Defendant
Sudsanguan
Case Status
Judgment / End of trial
Case Started
2014
Complainant / Plaintiff
No information
Table of Content
21 February 2014 Daruni, Sudsa-nguan and Picha lead a gathering of over hundreds of people in front of the Civil Court to protest the Civil Court's decision to revoke the Emergency Act. They placed a flower wreath and displayed picket signs to protest. The Director of Administrative Office of the Civil Court accused them of contempt of court.
During the proceeding of the trial court, Daruni did not appear in court. The court issued an arrest warrant for Daruni and ordered to strike her case out of the case list. Sudsa-nguan and Picha confessed to the court. The court judged that they were guilty and they was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment without parole. The defendants filed an appeal to a higher court.
During the appeal procedure, Picha died. This case had the only one accused left, Sudsa-nguan. The Appeal court then sentenced her to one month of imprisonment, reducing the sentence of the previous judgement. Following the court’s judgement, she appealed to Supreme Court. The Supreme court followed the decision of the trial court in sentencing Sudsa-nguan to one month imprisonment without reprieve.
Defendant Background
Daruni or Da is a popular business woman of the United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD). After Thailand's coup d'etat in 2014, she moved to another country as a political refugee.
Sudsa-nguan or Professor Toom is the second accused. She graduated from Thammasat University with a Bachelor's degree in law before studying for a Master’s degree at California University, USA in the field of criminology and law enforcement. She used to be a professor at the Faculty of Social Administration, Thammasat University.
Picha is the third accused. She used to be a lawyer for UDD. She died from a traffic accident during the proceeding of the trial court in 2015.
Offense
Others
Section 198 of Criminal Code, Section 31(1) of Civil Procedure Code
Allegation
On 21 February 2016 Daruni, Sudsa-nguan and Picha, along with more than a hundred other demonstrators, placed a flower wreath and displayed picket signs which stated "Dear Unfairness of the Civil Court ". They also used microphones and loudspeakers to sing a satirical song about the Civil Court's decision and yelled the word "unfairness ". There were some people brought a balance and a shivalinga as a prop and took their photo in front of the Civil Court. It was discourteous behaviour in the vicinity of the court and is considered as a contempt of court.
Circumstance of Arrest
No information
Trial Observation
No information
Black Case
No information
Court
Civil Court
Additional Info
No information
Reference
No information
21 February 2017
Manager Online reported that around 11.00 am in front of the Civil Court, Ratchadapisek road, Daruni Kritboonyalai with a group of people protested, read their declaration and placed a flower wreath to protest the Civil Court’s decision to order The Centre for Maintaining Peace and Order (ศรส) to use 9 measures and rules such as do not crackdown on protestors of the People's Democratic Reform Committee(PDRC)
After reading the declaration, they brought a flower wreath bearing the slogan "Dear Unfairness of the Civil Court" and displayed the picket signs to protest the Civil Court 's decision. They also displayed symbolic items such as lantern lamps and pickled fish before they placed the flower wreath around the pole of Civil Court. At the same time, they sang and shouted " unfairness " multiple times.
9 June 2014
Khaosod Online reported that at the Civil Court, Ratchadapisek road, the court scheduled the date for the application for the case of contempt of court, in which Director of Administrative Office of Civil Court accused of Daruni, Sudan-nguan and Picha of contempt of court by protesting, placing the flower wreath and showing picket signs on 21 February 2014. On that day, Sudsa-nguan and Picha appeared in court while Daruni did not. The lawyer submitted a request to the court to postpone the court schedule. However, the court opined that Daruni intended to escape. Therefore, the court issued an arrest warrant and striked out Daruni's case from the case list.
The court considered the observations from its video recording of the event and found that on the time of occurrence, there was a group of 130 people showing picket signs to protest and to satirize the court after the case of Tawon Sainnium (a plaintiff) sued Yingluck Shinawatra (former president) with 3 of her companions to revoke the Emergency Act. When the court ordered a temporary injunction in favour of the requester in this case, the protesters then placed a flower wreath, displayed picket signs (with the slogan “Dear Unfairness”) and used microphones and loudspeaker to protest in the Civil Court area. Sudsa-nguan and Pich, the second and third accused, accepted that they were the same people in the picture and withdrew all statements of denial. They confessed to the court and claimed that they did not know the woman dressed in black clothing who brought a balance and a shivalinga.
26 November 2015
Matichon online reported that according to the schedule of the court to read Appeal Court's decision of the case which Sudsa-nguan was the accused with Daruni who moved to another country as a political refugee and Picha who died. Appeal Court striked the case out of the case list.
In this case, Sudsa-nguan confessed but she appealed that it was just a demonstration under the right of Constitution and she did not know about bringing a flower wreath and had nothing related to it. About the singing, it was just a personal group song. She did not mean to make the noise to disturb the trial of Civil Court. The court considered it was an appeal on the facts. It was not allowed to appeal and the court denied to consider.
The reason of suspended sentence, the court had an opinion that Sudsa-nguan graduated from Thammasat University in bachelor's degree in law and Master Degree from USA. Therefore, she should know the proceeding in court well. Bringing a flower wreath and singing to satirize the Civil Court's decision did not show respect to the court. This is seriously inappropriate behaviour. Even though Sudsa-nguan had never been sentenced before, there was no reason to suspend his sentence.
However, Appeal Court adjudicated by changing the previous sentence to one month imprisonment instead.
After Appeal Court had its decision. Sudan-nguan appealed to Supreme Court for light punishment and suspended sentence before requested to be released 50,000 bath on bail.
8 November 2016
Prachatai reported that at Civil Court Rutchadapisek, Sudsa-nguan, the second accused, appeared in court to listen to Supreme Court's decision. About her request for light punishment and suspended sentence, the court considered that the guilty of contempt of court had maximum penalty 6 months imprisonment according to The Civil Procedure Code section 33. Supreme Court agreed with Trial Court to order two months imprisonment and reduced the punishment by half to one month imprisonment. It was appropriate to the case and because of seriously circumstance, there was no reason to suspend sentence.
Another matter to consider according to petition to Supreme Court of prosecutor of The Attorney General about changing sentence from imprisonment to confinement. The court had an opinion that the action which Sudan-nguan brought people to pressure the court's decision could be considered as a sabotage of the institution of the court. This action could deprive the court of its impartiality as it may be pressured to follow the mood of the parties. This could lead to trouble and the law was not respected. It reflected to aggressive action and did not afraid of law punishment.
Supreme Court considered and sentenced Sudsa-Nguan according to Trial Court's decision to one month imprisonment without parole.
8 December 2016
Bangkokbiznews reported that at 6.00 am, officer of central women correctional institution released Sudsa-nguan after one month imprisonment.
Verdict
Supreme Court judgement
This case according to Director of Administrative office of the Civil Court had reported Chief Judge and accused that on 21 February 2015, Daruni, Sudsa-nguan and Picha with the group of 130 people placed a flower wreath and showed picket signs to accuse Civil Court and yelled "unfair". There was some people brought a standard measure and a wooden image of penis to show in front of Civil Court. It was inappropriate behaviour in court area.
During the proceeding of Trial Court, Daruni did not show up to the court. The court issued a warrant of arrest and ordered striking her case out of the case list. Sudsa-nguan and Picha confessed to the court. Civil Court ruled that they had guilty and sentenced them to two months imprisonment. However, they gave a confession to the court so their punishment reduced by half to one month imprisonment without parole. Sudsa-nguan and Picha filed an appeal and request for bail.
On the appeal procedure, Picha died during the proceeding of the court. The court ordered striking Picha's case out of the case list. This case had only one accused left, Sudsa-nguan. Appeal Court changed the imprisonment sentence to one month confinement without suspended sentence instead.
In Supreme Court, the court considered according to the request of Sudsa-nguan for light punishment and suspended sentence. The court had an opinion that her guilty of contempt of court had maximum penalty to six months imprisonment according to The Civil Procedure Code section 33 and agreed with Trial Court to rule two months imprisonment and reduced the punishment by half to one month imprisonment. This was appropriate for the case.
Another matter to consider according to petition to Supreme Court of prosecutor of The Attorney General about changing sentence from imprisonment to confinement. The court had an opinion that Sudsa-nguan had a knowledge of law and she was a professor in university. Therefore, she should know that the judgement of the court could make parties satisfied or unsatisfied. The party who unsatisfied from losing a lawsuit could file an appeal, but the action of Sudsa-nguan that brought a group of people to pressure the consider of the court could be considered as a sabotage of the institution of the court. This action could deprive the court of its impartiality as it may be pressured to follow the mood of the parties. This could lead to trouble and the law was not respected. It reflected to aggressive action and did not afraid of law punishment. Therefore, there is no reason that the court should have mercy on her by changing sentence from imprisonment to confinement. The court adjudicated following Trial Court.